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

Enzokk · 28-04-2020 10:33AM

Interesting call on James O'Brien from a Junior Doctor working in ITU. He was trying to defend the government downgrading the pandemic so PPE required legally wasn't done due to the PPE shortage but due to the mortality rate of the virus. Fair point.

He then went on to criticise Matt Hancock for saying that he, Hancock, was only following the PHE guidance on PPE when they are downgrading the requirements that staff can get by on. The point he is making, PHE and the advisors will only make their guidance on the data they have, so if there are no gowns they will advise staff to wear equipment that is the next best solution on that data. So the PHE advice on PPE is formed by the shortage and to avoid running out of supplies and not because it is the best policy and safest for staff.

This is another point to watch out for from the politicians, they will hide behind the advice that puts staff at risk due to the shortages they failed to address.

Joe_ Public · 28-04-2020 10:38AM

Enzokk wrote: »

ONS figures are out again,

Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional: week ending 17 April 2020

https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1255056329275834370?s=20

https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1255057161190850560?s=20

So if I am reading the first tweet correctly, that is more than double the deaths than average recorded in hospitals. I assume the chart will again be updated today at the press briefing so the UK all deaths figure will move forward a bit again.

This doesn't include the deaths that has tested negative for Covid-19 though. Then you have to factor in deaths that could have been avoided due to people not going to hospital due to the crises, as the government has been at pains to tell people to still go to hospital. I doubt they would be doing this if it wasn't a area of concern they have identified.

Whoever has drawn the short straw for today's briefing not going to be a happy bunny at this very moment. Should be some hard questioning, at a bare minimum.

Nothing surprising at all about those figures, still almost certainly an underestimation. One thing they suggest is doctors now much more willing to put covid-19 on death register than they were a couple of weeks back.

Joe_ Public · 28-04-2020 10:42AM

myfreespirit wrote: »

Dr. Gabriel Scally was speaking on the Sean O'Rourke RTÉ radio programme just now about the contrast between the UK government response to CoViD-19 and the Irish government approach. In particular, he was sharply critical of the UK government in terms of their transparency.
His statement "The (daily UK government) press conferences are staged displays... with people not answering questions honestly." is quite illuminating and corroborates what many commentators on this thread have been saying for a while now.

Yet, we have a good few posts on the thread defending this dishonesty and attempting to deflect from it. The virus pandemic can't be defeated by covering up failings and pretending that everything is going to some (non-existent) plan.

Yeah, i heard him. Very composed and insightful. He was responding to a question about a lack of transparency with the irish advisory body not releasing minutes since April 11 and said that's at least better than places where they hadnt released any minutes at all.

S.M.B. · 28-04-2020 10:46AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm stating that there appears to be no reputable science behind the initial response by the UK which allowed the virus to get a foothold.
If there was then they would proudly state it rather than hiding behind the usual "scientific advice" bluster that is being repeated here by some

Yeah, the point I was trying to make was not very clear.

Because of the black box nature of SAGE it's difficult to 100% analyse the scientific advice that was given in the early days but the output and interpretation of that advice at one stage was clearly to allow the virus to get a foot hold within the UK by moving to the mitigate strategy. I don't understand how theological can say that this is an 'inaccurate description of the UK position'.

Zubeneschamali · 28-04-2020 12:08PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm stating that there appears to be no reputable science behind the initial response by the UK which allowed the virus to get a foothold.

Who in 2013 wrote about modelling and herd immunity being used against epidemics?

Who thinks civil service jobsworths too timid to take risks are a huge problem in the UK?

Who attended the SAGE meetings and brought their conclusions to Johnson?

Who is alleged to have pushed a policy of "herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad"

The anwers are all Dominic Cummings.

Why would Johnson follow this advice?

Cummings win the Brexit referendum, and indirectly got Johnson into #10.

More importantly, this policy involved doing nothing, which is Johnson's favourite kind of work, allowing him to skive off and shag blondes instead of leading a Government emergency team.

theological · 28-04-2020 12:27PM

S.M.B. wrote: »

You could argue the scientific merit of SAGE and the makeup of it's members but surely you can't argue that their advice for a period of time was to "allow it to get a foothold" by moving from a contain strategy to a mitigation strategy?

I don't think "allowing it to take a foothold" was a part of the strategy at any stage.

We were advised to work from home pretty early and stricter measures were phased in leading up to March 23rd.

I know many won't like me saying this, but I still don't agree that there was a significant difference between the British and Irish approach on this.

There's only so seriously one can take the suggestions in recent pages on this thread that one that the British response wasn't based on the science when it obviously was based on the advice from SAGE, and that Dominic Cummings was acting as a message boy for Johnson.

Speculation and hearsay seem to have more priority to people on this thread than the reality.

Enzokk · 28-04-2020 12:36PM

theological wrote: »

I don't think "allowing it to take a foothold" was a part of the strategy at any stage.

We were advised to work from home pretty early and stricter measures were phased in leading up to March 23rd.

I know many won't like me saying this, but I still don't agree that there was a significant difference between the British and Irish approach on this.

There's only so seriously one can take the suggestions in recent pages on this thread that one that the British response wasn't based on the science when it obviously was based on the advice from SAGE, and that Dominic Cummings was acting as a message boy for Johnson.

Speculation and hearsay seem to have more priority to people on this thread than the reality.

To the first bolded bit, we have been over this before. Ireland shut down earlier than the UK or at the same time. But you have been telling us repeatedly we are 2 weeks behind, so the approach wasn't the same as Ireland reacted sooner than the UK, right?

As for the second bolded part, how do we know what they based their advice on when they haven't released the advice? This is not for you or me to look at and judge, but other experts to provide feedback on what they think and feel about the situation.

At the moment we only have the slogan, followed scientific advice, when we don't know what was advised by whom. Just as difficult as it is for us to say they didn't follow the advice, the same is true of you. There is no evidence either way because they haven't released the advice they have been given.

Joe_ Public · 28-04-2020 12:39PM

theological wrote: »

I don't think "allowing it to take a foothold" was a part of the strategy at any stage.

We were advised to work from home pretty early and stricter measures were phased in leading up to March 23rd.

I know many won't like me saying this, but I still don't agree that there was a significant difference between the British and Irish approach on this.

There's only so seriously one can take the suggestions in recent pages on this thread that one that the British response wasn't based on the science when it obviously was based on the advice from SAGE, and that Dominic Cummings was acting as a message boy for Johnson.

Speculation and hearsay seem to have more priority to people on this thread than the reality.

A message boy for Boris Johnson? So why was Cummings contributing to meetings if that was his only role and why was he performing that role anyway? That's not how it's supposed to work.

Seth Brundle · 28-04-2020 12:40PM

theological wrote: »

I don't think "allowing it to take a foothold" was a part of the strategy at any stage.

You're still twisting what I said.
I didn't say that "allowing it to take a foothold" was a part of the strategy (and I don't believe anyone else said it).
I said that the strategy did not follow valid science which had the subsequent effect of allowing it to get a foothold.
The "science" that the British politicians keep waffling out is not real and verifiable science. It's horsecrap designed to make the people think that the politicians know what they're doing.

Dave0301 · 28-04-2020 12:41PM

theological wrote: »

I don't think "allowing it to take a foothold" was a part of the strategy at any stage.

We were advised to work from home pretty early and stricter measures were phased in leading up to March 23rd.

I know many won't like me saying this, but I still don't agree that there was a significant difference between the British and Irish approach on this.

There's only so seriously one can take the suggestions in recent pages on this thread that one that the British response wasn't based on the science when it obviously was based on the advice from SAGE, and that Dominic Cummings was acting as a message boy for Johnson.

Speculation and hearsay seem to have more priority to people on this thread than the reality.

Then there should be no issues with releasing the minutes of the SAGE meetings so that other scientists can peer review it...

Oh wait they won't do that.

Christy42 · 28-04-2020 12:44PM

theological wrote: »

I don't think "allowing it to take a foothold" was a part of the strategy at any stage.

We were advised to work from home pretty early and stricter measures were phased in leading up to March 23rd.

I know many won't like me saying this, but I still don't agree that there was a significant difference between the British and Irish approach on this.

There's only so seriously one can take the suggestions in recent pages on this thread that one that the British response wasn't based on the science when it obviously was based on the advice from SAGE, and that Dominic Cummings was acting as a message boy for Johnson.

Speculation and hearsay seem to have more priority to people on this thread than the reality.

Was it peer reviewed? That is a major major step in the scientific process. Since it hasn't been released assuming it is not based on science is a reasonable suggestion.

In fact I will go one further and say my approach is based on science and shows that their approach is wrong. All we have is their word that it was based on science and all you have is my word that my approach is based on science.

theological · 28-04-2020 12:47PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

A message boy for Boris Johnson? So why was Cummings contributing to meetings if that was his only role and why was he performing that role anyway? That's not how it's supposed to work.

This question is asking me to disprove your speculation.

That's not the way it should work. When someone makes a speculative claim the onus if on them to back it up.

It's obvious that the PM has been working directly with the chief medical and scientific officers throughout.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You're still twisting what I said.
I didn't say that "allowing it to take a foothold" was a part of the strategy (and I don't believe anyone else said it).
I said that the strategy did not follow valid science which had the subsequent effect of allowing it to get a foothold.
The "science" that the British politicians keep waffling out is not real and verifiable science. It's horsecrap designed to make the people think that the politicians know what they're doing.

Again, there's no basis for this claim either other than that you find it convenient. It's obvious that SAGE gave their advice on consideration of the science. They even published the papers that formed the basis of their initial response. They are on the UK Government website.

Joe_ Public · 28-04-2020 01:03PM

theological wrote: »

This question is asking me to disprove your speculation.

That's not the way it should work. When someone makes a speculative claim the onus if on them to back it up.

I'm not asking you to disprove anything. I am telling you you are wrong. The job of reporting to the prime minister belongs to the chief scientific adviser which is Patrick Vallance. That is how SAGE is set up to operate. There is no provision for a spad to be a "messenger boy", let alone to be contributing to meetings.

Enzokk · 28-04-2020 01:12PM

The reason why people will not trust this government? Seems like they count individual gloves and paper towels to get to their numbers of 1bn items of PPE they have delivered during this crises.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1255101422359711744?s=20

So when they tell you they are following the science, the answer shouldn't be, great. It should be, release the data so other scientists can review and offer their input on the same advice. Because we know this government isn't above twisting and at the worst, flat out lying to the public.

A Dub in Glasgo · 28-04-2020 01:12PM

Scotland:
In hospital: 1,754(-8)
In ICU: 126 (-8)
Total confirmed cases: 10,721 (+200)
Total deaths with confirmed COVID-19: 1,332 (+70)

Therefore as it stands, there are a minimum of 2,033 (1,332+701) deaths in Scotland (confirmed and suspected)

Tomorrow will see an update of the suspected COVID-19 deaths in Scotland (up to Sunday, 26th April)

TheCitizen · 28-04-2020 01:13PM

myfreespirit wrote: »

Dr. Gabriel Scally was speaking on the Sean O'Rourke RTÉ radio programme just now about the contrast between the UK government response to CoViD-19 and the Irish government approach. In particular, he was sharply critical of the UK government in terms of their transparency.
His statement "The (daily UK government) press conferences are staged displays... with people not answering questions honestly." is quite illuminating and corroborates what many commentators on this thread have been saying for a while now.

Yet, we have a good few posts on the thread defending this dishonesty and attempting to deflect from it. The virus pandemic can't be defeated by covering up failings and pretending that everything is going to some (non-existent) plan.

You have to winder why there are posters on an Irish message board going to such lengths defending the indefensible buffoon Johnson and his crew.

Enzokk · 28-04-2020 01:31PM

Enzokk wrote: »

The reason why people will not trust this government? Seems like they count individual gloves and paper towels to get to their numbers of 1bn items of PPE they have delivered during this crises.

So when they tell you they are following the science, the answer shouldn't be, great. It should be, release the data so other scientists can review and offer their input on the same advice. Because we know this government isn't above twisting and at the worst, flat out lying to the public.

Just as an update, Gove answered this and just listed out more numbers of items delivered and didn't address whether they included towels or individual gloves in their calculations.

This story is a little depressing from a GP,

I'm a GP who got coronavirus because I had no PPE. I feel guilty but also angry

In late February I had an influx of children with sore throats and headaches, and patients who “forgot” they had been in Spain or “only flew through Milan”. If I could do that week again I would still see every patient, but insist on PPE for everyone. By the end of the week I had mild symptoms of coronavirus.

As an NHS doctor, the advice I was given? Seven days isolation, no testing. Luckily my seven days ended on a Friday when I felt well once more. However, like countless others, day nine was a sudden change as I struggled to breathe and my temperature soared. Once more I followed guidelines and called NHS 111. They told me to contact my GP.

Once again, where is the science on this? She was told to isolate for 7 days and she felt better. If that has been any other day than Friday she would have gone back to work and possibly infected patients. She started feeling worse again on day 9.

Where is the science that it is okay to go out of isolation after 7 days and not 14 like the WHO advice?

CelticRambler · 28-04-2020 01:35PM

theological wrote: »

It's obvious that the PM has been working directly with the chief medical and scientific officers throughout.

... It's obvious that SAGE gave their advice on consideration of the science. They even published the papers that formed the basis of their initial response. They are on the UK Government website.

Those papers are a load of waffle (and yes, I've read them) with next-to-no science in them, only references to other papers and "studies" and "science".

So, yes, it's long been obvious that the PM was working with "someone" but there wasn't and still isn't anything obviously scientific about the advice coming out of SAGE.

I argued this point with you way back in the early days of this thread, and repeatedly asked you to justify your position of going along with the "science-led" right-measures-at-the-right-time approach when it made absolutely no scientific sense, certainly not from a disease control point of view.

As this is my area of expertise, it's come as no surprise, therefore, to find that SAGE is made up of a load of "very experienced" scientists whose experience is in fields with almost no relevance to the management of highly infectious respiratory diseases.

There are hundreds of scientific disciplines; when faced with an active challenge, you can't just pick a few at random and hope they come up with a suitable solution. And yet even now, you're still determined to put all your faith in the government that messed up the relatively simple task of picking the right men and women for the job.

Harry Palmr · 28-04-2020 02:28PM

Just looking at the Wales breakdown, while men are more likely to die from Convid 19 in Wales women have much higher contract rate, with a huge disparity in the 40-60 age range. Very stark looking at it. Must be a reason for it.

Number of dead just 7 which is lowest since March 24th, there is a clear downward trend from the peak of 44 dead on April 13th.

England

546 total of which
- 93 occurred on 27 April
- 213 occurred on 26 April
- 79 occurred on 25 April

The figures also show 141 of the new deaths took place between 1-24 April while the remaining 20 deaths occurred in March, with the earliest new death taking place on 19 March.

Also most Britons (over 70%) want to stay closed until proven safe - weird phasing of that stat in this headline.

https://twitter.com/IpsosMORI/status/1255052460722401280

theological · 28-04-2020 03:09PM

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Just looking at the Wales breakdown, while men are more likely to die from Convid 19 in Wales women have much higher contract rate, with a huge disparity in the 40-60 age range. Very stark looking at it. Must be a reason for it.

Number of dead just 7 which is lowest since March 24th, there is a clear downward trend from the peak of 44 dead on April 13th.

England

546 total of which
- 93 occurred on 27 April
- 213 occurred on 26 April
- 79 occurred on 25 April

The figures also show 141 of the new deaths took place between 1-24 April while the remaining 20 deaths occurred in March, with the earliest new death taking place on 19 March.

Also most Britons (over 70%) want to stay closed until proven safe - weird phasing of that stat in this headline.

https://twitter.com/IpsosMORI/status/1255052460722401280

I think it is important to note that most Britons say that the economy shouldn't be reopened. That's not the same thing as saying the lockdown shouldn't be eased. I struggle to see how it is sustainable to keep the current circumstances for much longer.

Also 546 is huge progress. I hope we see that number decrease further over the next week. That will be key.

CelticRambler · 28-04-2020 03:41PM

theological wrote: »

I struggle to see how it is sustainable to keep the current circumstances for much longer.

Ah, well if you (or the government) had asked - and taken - the advice of people who are used to dealing with rapidly spreading infectious diseases as part of their day-to-day work, you'd be living in entirely different circumstances and wouldn't be struggling at all.

Some of us said from the beginning that this approach would be shown to be ineffective and unsustainable. You said we were wrong. If you're now struggling to see how the situation can evolve in a positive fashion, are you beginning to doubt the wisdom of your favourite Prime Minister?

RobMc59 · 28-04-2020 05:00PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

Ah, well if you (or the government) had asked - and taken - the advice of people who are used to dealing with rapidly spreading infectious diseases as part of their day-to-day work, you'd be living in entirely different circumstances and wouldn't be struggling at all.

Some of us said from the beginning that this approach would be shown to be ineffective and unsustainable. You said we were wrong. If you're now struggling to see how the situation can evolve in a positive fashion, are you beginning to doubt the wisdom of your favourite Prime Minister?

I don't have much time for Johnson but if he is advised by people deemed to be knowledgeable in how to deal with this type of virus,then he is doing his best,its not his fault if the advice being offered to him is incorrect.The issue of who is responsible could be further complicated because expert advice was possibly ignored and effects on the economy were put first and valuable time to control the virus were lost.
Hopefully,this will all come out eventually.

S.M.B. · 28-04-2020 05:25PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

Ah, well if you (or the government) had asked - and taken - the advice of people who are used to dealing with rapidly spreading infectious diseases as part of their day-to-day work, you'd be living in entirely different circumstances and wouldn't be struggling at all.

As much as I am unimpressed with the current governments handling of the situation I don't think there's an alternative timeline where if handled differently we still wouldn't be struggling to some extent right now, whether that's emotionally, economically, physically etc. A global pandemic is hardly going to be a stroll in the park.

Enzokk · 28-04-2020 05:27PM

Look at that, they have changed the 5 tests to relax the lockdown.

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1255167987507748865?s=20

So from avoiding a second wave to avoiding a second wave that overruns the NHS.

Hancock asked if PPE stocks are running low, he cannot directly and says it is a global problem basically and getting it to the people that need it is difficult.

Edit: Here is the new slide with care home deaths added and it shows how much higher the UK is than other European countries. Caveat added not all of them have care homes included but I believe France does have so far. Remember these are only care home deaths that has Covid-19 mentioned as a cause of death. There are many more other excess deaths in the UK that will be hard to dismiss.

https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1255169330989408264?s=20

Enzokk · 28-04-2020 05:42PM

Sorry for the quick second reply, but Hancock just asked about the number of care home deaths and the proportion to the total (remember they have been claiming 10% only of the total so far).

His answer, well they were just quoting the figures and where it was at the time. At the time care home deaths were only 10% of the total.

That is total BS as usual. They know the care home deaths are delayed as they are not chasing the numbers at all and are leaving that to the ONS. Secondly, they weren't testing in care homes at all so they had no idea what the situation in care homes were. Then you had the shambles of PPE in care homes, because most of them are private so they don't fall under the NHS and the responsibility isn't really on the government for PPE.

A question on facemasks and Scotland recommending people use them as the advice has been given since a week ago for this to happen.

A shock of an answer, they are guided by the science from Hancock. Professor Mclean says SAGE advice is clear, weak evidence of a small effect of facemasks preventing infection.

So I guess this is now a question for Sturgeon, why did Scotland advise to wear facemasks if the evidence is weak?

Leroy42 · 28-04-2020 05:56PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't have much time for Johnson but if he is advised by people deemed to be knowledgeable in how to deal with this type of virus,then he is doing his best,its not his fault if the advice being offered to him is incorrect.The issue of who is responsible could be further complicated because expert advice was possibly ignored and effects on the economy were put first and valuable time to control the virus were lost.
Hopefully,this will all come out eventually.

Advisors advise, ministers make decisions.

It is clear to anyone that there was more than one method on how to tackle it, even a cursory glance at how the rest of the world were reacting should have led to Johnson asking questions as to why his advisors were so sure they were right.

But of course Johnson skipped the Cobra meetings, so one can only conclude that he didn't see it as that important and/or urgent. So if he did that the advice, unquestioning, from the advisors then he has serious questions to answer as to why it didn't question them further.

It is totally his faulty, although it can be not because of him, as he is the PM. It is his job to ensure that the right people are asked the right questions and that their advice is given the required scruntiny.

There is no evidence that he did any of that, although report of missing Cobra meetings and staying on holidays would suggest that, at least in initially, he didn't do his job.

Joe_ Public · 28-04-2020 05:56PM

If i was a care home provider, watching residents die every day and staff struggling without adequate ppe, and i had to listen to Matt Hancock coming out with guff like care homes have always been our "top priority" and "we focussed on them right from the start" I'd have put my foot through the screen by now. Have to have some brass neck to come out with that given what's happening.

Joe_ Public · 28-04-2020 06:05PM

The figure Hancock used today was 16% which i take to mean he's saying care home deaths are 1/6 of the overall total. I guess thats an increase on 1/10 but he's deluded or disingenuous if he thinks thats anywhere near the mark.

In one week alone (up to 24 april i think) there were over 8,000 care home deaths in england and wales. That's 5,000 over the usual average. In one week.

Seth Brundle · 28-04-2020 06:35PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't have much time for Johnson but if he is advised by people deemed to be knowledgeable in how to deal with this type of virus,then he is doing his best,its not his fault if the advice being offered to him is incorrect.The issue of who is responsible could be further complicated because expert advice was possibly ignored and effects on the economy were put first and valuable time to control the virus were lost.
Hopefully,this will all come out eventually.

Out of curiosity, do you really believe that Johnson was advised on this cretinous information or was it just him pretending to be Trump?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3NAx3tsy-k

I can recall showing this to my children who immediately knew it was an absolutely stupid thing for him to say!

Surely his advisors should also have advised him on the need for at least 2m social distancing (as per the best practices advice almost every other leader was encouraging at the time). Was he not advised on this or did he simply ignore it for several weeks of media briefings amongst other events?

Enzokk · 28-04-2020 06:37PM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The figure Hancock used today was 16% which i take to mean he's saying care home deaths are 1/6 of the overall total. I guess thats an increase on 1/10 but he's deluded or disingenuous if he thinks thats anywhere near the mark.

In one week alone (up to 24 april i think) there were over 8,000 care home deaths in england and wales. That's 5,000 over the usual average. In one week.

They are being disingenuous on their numbers. Before they were talking about care home deaths only being about 10% of the total but seemed to ignore that data from other countries were showing it is from 40% to 60%. I am going to be cynical and say that the reason they ignored this is because their in hospital numbers were terrible and if you were to add another 40% to the numbers they would have no chance of trying to fool anyone that their response was the correct one or that they were following the science. The pressure and questions would have been ramped up to, someone has to be fired levels.

This is what we were posting about on here, it is not to revel in the amount of people that have died. It is highlighting that what they are telling you doesn't align with reality out there at all. We know what is happening in other countries but the UK seems to deny this reality.

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

Comments