SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Why have you posted a tweet which links to the same article from the person you quoted?
If public opinion snaps Hancock will be the Minister who faces the proverbial firing squad.
I'm sure he's doing his best but he comes across terribly. An inconsequential, managerial, empty suit of a politician. Who is making promises he can't get anywhere near and is hopelessly out of his depth.
Click on the tweet.
I blame stupidity TBH
In essence Sweden has decided to pay for reduced lockdown with the lives of mainly elderly people.
That is 44 time more deaths per head of population than in Australia who locked down just early enough. That isn't a decision I'd be happy with even if you do manage not to overwhelm your medial facilities.
Well no, that's not the case either @Wibble as Belgium locked down rather early (even before Aus did) and have almost 6000 deaths now. And then you have the case of Gothenburg and Malmö, 2 big Swedish cities that have just 126 deaths between them.
I think Stockholm (944 deaths) and most of Belgium, having half term in week 9 (Italy horror week) royally fecked them, lock down or no lock down, that half term brought back so much of the virus to these places and they were fecked regardless of measures put in place in mid-March.
All of Poland, Oslo, Copenhagen, Gothenburg (Sweden) and Malmö (Sweden) all had half term in week 7 or 8, it seems to have made all the difference.
And, you gotta come out of lockdown Wibble, as many countries now are, they will all come out before long and long before any vaccine is in place; people will continue to catch this and die, whether now or in 3-5 months. Beaches opened up in Aus I saw, before long more and more will soon open up.
The idea that lockdown has "saved lives" is such a short term one, and when you see the likes of France and Belgium, is it really even a scientific fact? Belgium have still been seeing over 1000 cases per day one full month after lockdown. It appears to take at least one month before it even starts to help the stats drop, something that we're seeing in Sweden now even without lockdown after 6 weeks of social distancing measures, as the graph of daily deaths below shows:
Sweden above, no lockdown. Social distancing started mid-March, took some weeks to have effect, peaked around 8th April, now on downward trend.
Belgium below, 18th March lockdown, took some weeks to have effect, peaked around 11th April, now on downward trend.
That'll be my last post on it for the week, unless any new data or study comes to light.
Last edited:
This feels criminally negligent?
Hancock will just be the first, and quite soon too. Isn't Parliament back soon via digital; that should be enough to throw Hancock under a bus. His only saving grace right now is a new minister would literally have to hit the ground sprinting, given there isn't even a day for on-boarding.
Given UK Government has infinite more opportunities for mistakes, many more ministers will fall to deflect the blame from Boris.
Well no, that's not the case either as Belgium locked down rather early (even before Aus did) and have almost 6000 deaths now. And then you have the case of Gothenburg and Malmö, 2 big Swedish cities that have just 126 deaths between them.
I think Stockholm (944 deaths) and most of Belgium, having half term in week 9 (Italy horror week) royally fecked them, lock down or no lock down, that half term brought back so much of the virus to these places and they were fecked regardless of measures put in place in mid-March.
All of Poland, Oslo, Copenhagen, Gothenburg (Sweden) and Malmö (Sweden) all had half term in week 7 or 8, it seems to have made all the difference.
And, you gotta come out of lockdown Wibble, as many countries now are, they will all come out before long and long before any vaccine is in place; people will continue to catch this and die, whether now or in 3-5 months. Beaches opened up in Aus I saw, before long more and more will soon open up.
The idea that lockdown has "saved lives" is such a short term one, and when you see the likes of France and Belgium, is it really even a scientific fact? Belgium have still been seeing over 1000 cases per day one full month after lockdown. It appears to take at least one month before it even starts to help the stats drop, something that we're seeing in Sweden now even without lockdown after 6 weeks of social distancing measures, as the graph of daily deaths below shows:
Sweden above, no lockdown.
Belgium below, 18th March lockdown.
That'll be my last post on it for the week, unless any new data or study comes to light.
Lockdown alone isn't always an answer especially if you had mass infection within your borders before the lockdown (no matter when that was) or if you have porous borders and other factors like population density and living conditions.
Sweden had many of the advantages that have enabled Australia and NZ to avoid the worst but chose not to. Given that Sweden seems to be doing far worse than the rest of Scandinavia it is almost certain that not locking down has cost many lives, with more to come. Countries are all making compromises I suppose e.g. Australia didn't lock down as hard as NZ did but Sweden's approach seems more blatantly "it's only a few only people" than most possibly because medical facilities are coping at the moment.
And yes, you have to come out of lockdown but NZ's decision to come back from level 4 restrictions to level 3 (broadly the same as Australia who never went to stage 4) is only due to Covid being almost eliminated from the country at least in community transmission terms. Australia is in a great place but it will be a month before we even consider any loosening. There are variables but lockdowns do save lives and herd immunity isn't possible with 11-70 million deaths or a vaccine. So we need t be very cautious coming out of lockdown.
Last week, the world had 9.
In all honesty, if sweden can maintain the numbers, would be success even with a few more deaths. Economic decisions that implies more deaths than sweden is getting now are taken everyday, like air pollution due to traffic and factories, alcohol consumption, not tackling other illnesses like the flu and other reasons that probably takes more lives than the COVID-19 there. So I would not see any reason why to shut down their economy for COVID19 and not the other reasons
And I say that, I repeat if the numbers remains constant. Time will tell
In all honesty, if sweden can maintain the numbers, would be success even with a few more deaths. Economic decisions that implies more deaths than sweden is getting now are taken everyday, like air pollution due to traffic and factories, alcohol consumption, not tackling other illnesses like the flu and other reasons that probably takes more lives than the COVID-19 there. So I would not see any reason why to shut down their economy for COVID19 and not the other reasons
And I say that, I repeat if the numbers remains constant. Time will tell
Absolutely.
I'd imagine Hacock will be on a very stick wicket if he doesn't meet his 100,000 tests a day target (he won't) and if we fall massively short of that (we currently are) his position will be untenable.
But those are constant and known health related issues - and largely ones we should deal with and don't, or at least not sufficiently. This is a largely unknown health issue and to me taking such a dangerous and lax approach is immoral partly because it affects your own population but also because it doesn't help the world situation - countries like Sweden should be leading by example and their approach encourage things like the freedom before Covid type silliness in the US. Of course there is also the immorality and incompetence of the UK government which is unbelievable, except it isn't - what else would you expect from a government that have been so bad for so long?
Our government is largely a morality free zone but they know they would be out on their ear if they took such an approach.
I agree that might be immoral if they do it recklessly but I believe that the same model might not work for the same country and the moment on the infection that they are into. They implemented a bit more restrictions this weekend. Maybe their model is fluid and they need to pass certain tresholds that they didn't pass yet to implement a more severe lock down? Maybe his model it can be implemented because the population is taking individually the advise very strictly while we all seen wankers in US, UK, Spain and others on how serious they take their government advise?
I don't see the swedish government as one that would not take in account science and taking a populist stance. Is early to say if it will work though
Sweden isn't doing nothing but it seems a very odd decision given that herd immunity isn't realistically possible without a vaccine unless you want millions to die worldwide.
Well. Hopefully it works for them and the rest of the world work their model too
The lack of clear exit strategy is concerning. I was hoping around now they would be announcing measures for testing, tracing & quarantining and how they would implement that. Obviously, the testing numbers are still shocking but there's a lot of other things that need to be implemented for it to work - strategy for public transport, offices, schools etc.
I'm worried they're just going to wing it all last minute & botch it up rendering the lockdown a bit pointless.
I'm worried they're just going to wing it all last minute & botch it up rendering the lockdown a bit pointless.
Boris wing it? Surely not?
Well, I'm an idiot for expecting any better I guess. I think the PPE shit-show kind of shows the state their in. They're constantly a couple of weeks behind where we need to be.
A suggestion that air pollution is an important contributor to Covid deaths. That said this shows correlation rather than causation and it could just be that the places with the worst pollution are just the sorts of places where the virus spreads best e.g. lots of people in packed accommodation and/or public transport.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...zO3wmkkaYgi62cEotei2yWqT1VhE558Sj-WAPPxef6v58
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...zO3wmkkaYgi62cEotei2yWqT1VhE558Sj-WAPPxef6v58
UK Government has replied with an official 2,500 word rebuttal to the Sunday Times article
Response to Sunday Times Insight article
Posted by: dhscpressoffice, Posted on: 19 April 2020 - Categories: Coronavirus (COVID-19)
A Government spokesman said: ‘This article contains a series of falsehoods and errors and actively misrepresents the enormous amount of work which was going on in government at the earliest stages of the Coronavirus outbreak.’
‘This is an unprecedented global pandemic and we have taken the right steps at the right time to combat it, guided at all times by the best scientific advice.
‘The Government has been working day and night to battle against coronavirus, delivering a strategy designed at all times to protect our NHS and save lives.
'Our response has ensured that the NHS has been given all the support it needs to ensure everyone requiring treatment has received it, as well as providing protection to businesses and reassurance to workers.
‘The Prime Minister has been at the helm of the response to this, providing leadership during this hugely challenging period for the whole nation.’
On the Sunday Times claims:
Claim – On the third Friday in January Coronavirus was already spreading around the world but the government ‘brushed aside’ the threat in an hour-long COBR meeting and said the risk to the UK public was ‘low’.
Response – At a very basic level, this is wrong. The meeting was on the fourth Friday in January. The article also misrepresents the Government’s awareness of Covid 19, and the action we took before this point. Health Secretary Matt Hancock was first alerted to Covid 19 on 3 January and spoke to Departmental officials on 6th Jan before receiving written advice from the UK Health Security Team.
He brought the issue to the attention of the Prime Minister and they discussed Covid 19 on 7 January. The government’s scientific advisory groups started to meet in mid-January and Mr Hancock instituted daily coronavirus meetings. He updated Parliament as soon as possible, on January 23rd.
The risk level was set to “Low” because at the time our scientific advice was that the risk level to the UK public at that point was low. The first UK case was not until 31 January. The specific meaning of “public health risk” refers to the risk there is to the public at precisely that point. The risk was also higher than it had been before - two days earlier it had been increased “Very Low” to “Low” in line with clinical guidance from the Chief Medical Officer.
The WHO did not formally declare that coronavirus was a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) until 30 January, and only characterised it as a global pandemic more than a month later, on 11 March. The UK was taking action and working to improve its preparedness from early January.
Claim - ‘This was despite the publication that day of an alarming study by Chinese doctors in the medical journal The Lancet. It assessed the lethal potential of the virus, for the first time suggesting it was comparable to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, which killed up to 50 million people.'
Response - The editor of the Lancet, on exactly the same day – 23 January - called for “caution” and accused the media of ‘escalating anxiety by talking of a ‘killer virus’ and ‘growing fears’. He wrote: ‘In truth, from what we currently know, 2019-nCoV has moderate transmissibility and relatively low pathogenicity. There is no reason to foster panic with exaggerated language.’ The Sunday Times is suggesting that there was a scientific consensus around the fact that this was going to be a pandemic – that is plainly untrue.
Claim - It was unusual for the Prime Minister to be absent from COBR and is normally chaired by the Prime Minister.
Response - This is wrong. It is entirely normal and proper for COBR to be chaired by the relevant Secretary of State. Then Health Secretary Alan Johnson chaired COBR in 2009 during H1N1. Michael Gove chaired COBR as part of No Deal planning. Transport Secretary Grant Shapps chaired COBR during the collapse of Thomas Cook. Mr Hancock was in constant communication with the PM throughout this period.
At this point the World Health Organisation had not declared COVID19 a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’, and only did so only 30 January. Indeed, they chose not to declare a PHEIC the day after the COBR meeting.
Examples of scientific commentary from the time:
Prof Martin Hibberd, Professor of Emerging Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said:
“This announcement is not surprising as more evidence may be needed to make the case of announcing a PHEIC. WHO were criticised after announcing the pandemic strain of novel H1N1_2009, when the virus was eventually realised to have similar characteristics to seasonal influenza and is perhaps trying to avoid making the same mistake here with this novel coronavirus. To estimate the true severity of this new disease requires identifying mild or asymptomatic cases, if there are any, while determining the human to human transmission rate might require more evidence.”
Dr Adam Kamradt-Scott, Senior Lecturer in International Security Studies, University of Sydney, said: “Based on the information we have to date, the WHO Director-General’s decision to not declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern is not especially surprising. While we have seen international spread of the virus, which is one of the criteria for declaring a PHEIC, the cases in those countries do not appear to have seeded further local outbreaks. If that was to start to occur, it would constitute a greater concern but at the moment the outbreak is largely contained within China.”
Claim - 'Imperial’s Ferguson was already working on his own estimate — putting infectivity at 2.6 and possibly as high as 3.5 — which he sent to ministers and officials in a report on the day of the Cobra meeting on January 24. The Spanish flu had an estimated infectivity rate of between 2.0 and 3.0, so Ferguson’s finding was shocking.’
Response - Infectivity on its own simply reveals how quickly a disease spreads, and not its health impact. For that, it is necessary to know about data such as associated mortality/morbidity. It is sloppy and unscientific to use this number alone to compare to Spanish flu.
Claim - No10 ‘played down the looming threat’ from Coronavirus and displayed an ‘almost nonchalant attitude…for more than a month.’
Response - The suggestion that the government’s attitude was nonchalant is wrong. Extensive and detailed work was going on in government because of Coronavirus, as shown above.
Claim - By the time the Prime Minister chaired a COBR meeting on March 2 ‘the virus had sneaked into our airports, our trains, our workplaces and our homes. Britain was on course for one of the worst infections of the most insidious virus to have hit the world in a century.'
Response - This virus has hit countries across the world. It is ridiculous to suggest that coronavirus only reached the UK because the Health Secretary and not the PM chaired a COBR meeting.
Claim - 'Failure of leadership' by anonymous senior advisor to Downing Street.
Response - The Prime Minister has been at the helm of the Government response to Covid 19, providing the leadership to steer his Ministerial team through a hugely challenging period for the whole nation. This anonymous source is variously described as a ‘senior adviser to Downing Street’ and a ‘senior Downing Street adviser’. The two things are not the same. One suggests an adviser employed by the government in No10. The other someone who provides ad hoc advice. Which is it?
Claim - The government sent 279,000 items of its depleted stockpile of protective equipment to China during this period in response to a request for help from the authorities there.
Response - The equipment was not from the pandemic stockpile. We provided this equipment to China at the height of their need and China has since reciprocated our donation many times over. Between April 2-April 15 we have received over 12 million pieces of PPE in the UK from China.
Claim - Little was done to equip the National Health Service for the coming crisis in this period.
Response - This is wrong. The NHS has responded well to Coronavirus, and has provided treatment to everyone in critical need. We have constructed the new Nightingale hospitals and extended intensive care capacity in other hospitals.
Claim - Among the key points likely to be explored are why it took so long to recognise an urgent need for a massive boost in supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health workers; ventilators to treat acute respiratory symptoms; and tests to detect the infection.
Response - The Department for Health began work on boosting PPE stocks in January, before the first confirmed UK case.
Response - The government started to act as soon as it was alerted to a potential outbreak. Mr Hancock was first alerted to Covid 19 on 3 January and spoke to Departmental officials on 6th Jan before receiving written advice from the UK Health Security Team. He brought the issue to the attention of the Prime Minister and they discussed Covid 19 on 7 January.
The government’s scientific advisory groups started to meet in mid-January and Hancock instituted daily meetings to grip the emerging threat. We have taken the right steps at the right time guided by the scientific evidence.
Claim - Scientists said the threat from the coming storm was clear and one of the government’s key advisory committees was given a dire warning a month earlier than has previously been admitted about the prospect of having to deal with mass casualties.
Response - The government followed scientific advice at all times. The WHO only determined that COVID 19 would be a global pandemic on 11 March. Claiming that there was scientific consensus on this is just wrong. Sage met on January 22 but the first NERVTAG meeting was held on 13 January (NERVTAG is the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group – see here https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/new-and-emerging-respiratory-virus-threats-advisory-group ).
Claim - The last rehearsal for a pandemic was a 2016 exercise codenamed Cygnus, which predicted the health service would collapse and highlighted a long list of shortcomings — including, presciently, a lack of PPE and intensive care ventilators.
Response - The Government has been extremely proactive in implementing lessons learnt around pandemic preparedness, including from Exercise Cygnus. This includes being ready with legislative proposals that could rapidly be tailored to what became the Coronavirus Act, plans to strengthen excess death planning, planning for recruitment and deployment of retired staff and volunteers, and guidance for stakeholders and sectors across government.
Claim - By February 21 the virus had already infected 76,000 people, had caused 2,300 deaths in China and was taking a foothold in Europe, with Italy recording 51 cases and two deaths the following day. Nonetheless NERVTAG, one of the key government advisory committees, decided to keep the threat level at “moderate”.
Response - This is a misrepresentation of what the threat level is. This is about the current public health danger – and on February 21, when the UK had about a dozen confirmed cases, out of a population of over 66 million, the actual threat to individuals was moderate. In terms of the potential threat, the government was clear – on 10 February the Secretary of State declared that “the incidence or transmission of novel Coronavirus constituted a serious and imminent threat to public health”.
A Government spokesman said: ‘This article contains a series of falsehoods and errors and actively misrepresents the enormous amount of work which was going on in government at the earliest stages of the Coronavirus outbreak.’
‘This is an unprecedented global pandemic and we have taken the right steps at the right time to combat it, guided at all times by the best scientific advice.
‘The Government has been working day and night to battle against coronavirus, delivering a strategy designed at all times to protect our NHS and save lives.
'Our response has ensured that the NHS has been given all the support it needs to ensure everyone requiring treatment has received it, as well as providing protection to businesses and reassurance to workers.
‘The Prime Minister has been at the helm of the response to this, providing leadership during this hugely challenging period for the whole nation.’
On the Sunday Times claims:
Claim – On the third Friday in January Coronavirus was already spreading around the world but the government ‘brushed aside’ the threat in an hour-long COBR meeting and said the risk to the UK public was ‘low’.
Response – At a very basic level, this is wrong. The meeting was on the fourth Friday in January. The article also misrepresents the Government’s awareness of Covid 19, and the action we took before this point. Health Secretary Matt Hancock was first alerted to Covid 19 on 3 January and spoke to Departmental officials on 6th Jan before receiving written advice from the UK Health Security Team.
He brought the issue to the attention of the Prime Minister and they discussed Covid 19 on 7 January. The government’s scientific advisory groups started to meet in mid-January and Mr Hancock instituted daily coronavirus meetings. He updated Parliament as soon as possible, on January 23rd.
The risk level was set to “Low” because at the time our scientific advice was that the risk level to the UK public at that point was low. The first UK case was not until 31 January. The specific meaning of “public health risk” refers to the risk there is to the public at precisely that point. The risk was also higher than it had been before - two days earlier it had been increased “Very Low” to “Low” in line with clinical guidance from the Chief Medical Officer.
The WHO did not formally declare that coronavirus was a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) until 30 January, and only characterised it as a global pandemic more than a month later, on 11 March. The UK was taking action and working to improve its preparedness from early January.
Claim - ‘This was despite the publication that day of an alarming study by Chinese doctors in the medical journal The Lancet. It assessed the lethal potential of the virus, for the first time suggesting it was comparable to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, which killed up to 50 million people.'
Response - The editor of the Lancet, on exactly the same day – 23 January - called for “caution” and accused the media of ‘escalating anxiety by talking of a ‘killer virus’ and ‘growing fears’. He wrote: ‘In truth, from what we currently know, 2019-nCoV has moderate transmissibility and relatively low pathogenicity. There is no reason to foster panic with exaggerated language.’ The Sunday Times is suggesting that there was a scientific consensus around the fact that this was going to be a pandemic – that is plainly untrue.
Claim - It was unusual for the Prime Minister to be absent from COBR and is normally chaired by the Prime Minister.
Response - This is wrong. It is entirely normal and proper for COBR to be chaired by the relevant Secretary of State. Then Health Secretary Alan Johnson chaired COBR in 2009 during H1N1. Michael Gove chaired COBR as part of No Deal planning. Transport Secretary Grant Shapps chaired COBR during the collapse of Thomas Cook. Mr Hancock was in constant communication with the PM throughout this period.
At this point the World Health Organisation had not declared COVID19 a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’, and only did so only 30 January. Indeed, they chose not to declare a PHEIC the day after the COBR meeting.
Examples of scientific commentary from the time:
Prof Martin Hibberd, Professor of Emerging Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said:
“This announcement is not surprising as more evidence may be needed to make the case of announcing a PHEIC. WHO were criticised after announcing the pandemic strain of novel H1N1_2009, when the virus was eventually realised to have similar characteristics to seasonal influenza and is perhaps trying to avoid making the same mistake here with this novel coronavirus. To estimate the true severity of this new disease requires identifying mild or asymptomatic cases, if there are any, while determining the human to human transmission rate might require more evidence.”
Dr Adam Kamradt-Scott, Senior Lecturer in International Security Studies, University of Sydney, said: “Based on the information we have to date, the WHO Director-General’s decision to not declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern is not especially surprising. While we have seen international spread of the virus, which is one of the criteria for declaring a PHEIC, the cases in those countries do not appear to have seeded further local outbreaks. If that was to start to occur, it would constitute a greater concern but at the moment the outbreak is largely contained within China.”
Claim - 'Imperial’s Ferguson was already working on his own estimate — putting infectivity at 2.6 and possibly as high as 3.5 — which he sent to ministers and officials in a report on the day of the Cobra meeting on January 24. The Spanish flu had an estimated infectivity rate of between 2.0 and 3.0, so Ferguson’s finding was shocking.’
Response - Infectivity on its own simply reveals how quickly a disease spreads, and not its health impact. For that, it is necessary to know about data such as associated mortality/morbidity. It is sloppy and unscientific to use this number alone to compare to Spanish flu.
Claim - No10 ‘played down the looming threat’ from Coronavirus and displayed an ‘almost nonchalant attitude…for more than a month.’
Response - The suggestion that the government’s attitude was nonchalant is wrong. Extensive and detailed work was going on in government because of Coronavirus, as shown above.
Claim - By the time the Prime Minister chaired a COBR meeting on March 2 ‘the virus had sneaked into our airports, our trains, our workplaces and our homes. Britain was on course for one of the worst infections of the most insidious virus to have hit the world in a century.'
Response - This virus has hit countries across the world. It is ridiculous to suggest that coronavirus only reached the UK because the Health Secretary and not the PM chaired a COBR meeting.
Claim - 'Failure of leadership' by anonymous senior advisor to Downing Street.
Response - The Prime Minister has been at the helm of the Government response to Covid 19, providing the leadership to steer his Ministerial team through a hugely challenging period for the whole nation. This anonymous source is variously described as a ‘senior adviser to Downing Street’ and a ‘senior Downing Street adviser’. The two things are not the same. One suggests an adviser employed by the government in No10. The other someone who provides ad hoc advice. Which is it?
Claim - The government sent 279,000 items of its depleted stockpile of protective equipment to China during this period in response to a request for help from the authorities there.
Response - The equipment was not from the pandemic stockpile. We provided this equipment to China at the height of their need and China has since reciprocated our donation many times over. Between April 2-April 15 we have received over 12 million pieces of PPE in the UK from China.
Claim - Little was done to equip the National Health Service for the coming crisis in this period.
Response - This is wrong. The NHS has responded well to Coronavirus, and has provided treatment to everyone in critical need. We have constructed the new Nightingale hospitals and extended intensive care capacity in other hospitals.
Claim - Among the key points likely to be explored are why it took so long to recognise an urgent need for a massive boost in supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health workers; ventilators to treat acute respiratory symptoms; and tests to detect the infection.
Response - The Department for Health began work on boosting PPE stocks in January, before the first confirmed UK case.
- Discussions on PPE supply for COVID-19 began w/c 27 January (as part of Medical Devices and Clinical Consumables), with the first supply chain kick-off meeting on 31 January. The first additional orders of PPE was placed on 30 January via NHS Supply Chain’s ‘just-in-time contracts’. BAU orders of PPE were ramped up around the same date.
- Friday, 7 February, the department held a webinar for suppliers trading from or via China and the European Union. Over 700 delegates joined and heard the Department’s requests to carry out full supply chain risk assessments and hold onto EU exit stockpiles where they had been retained.
- Monday, 10 February, the department spoke with the major patient groups and charities to update them on the situation regarding the outbreak and to update them on the steps it was taking to protect supplies.
- Tuesday, 11 February, the department wrote to all suppliers in scope of the Covid 19 supply response work – those trading from or via China or the EU – repeating the messages from the webinar and updating suppliers on the current situation relating to novel coronavirus.
- The NHS has spare ventilator capacity and we are investing in further capacity.
Response - The government started to act as soon as it was alerted to a potential outbreak. Mr Hancock was first alerted to Covid 19 on 3 January and spoke to Departmental officials on 6th Jan before receiving written advice from the UK Health Security Team. He brought the issue to the attention of the Prime Minister and they discussed Covid 19 on 7 January.
The government’s scientific advisory groups started to meet in mid-January and Hancock instituted daily meetings to grip the emerging threat. We have taken the right steps at the right time guided by the scientific evidence.
Claim - Scientists said the threat from the coming storm was clear and one of the government’s key advisory committees was given a dire warning a month earlier than has previously been admitted about the prospect of having to deal with mass casualties.
Response - The government followed scientific advice at all times. The WHO only determined that COVID 19 would be a global pandemic on 11 March. Claiming that there was scientific consensus on this is just wrong. Sage met on January 22 but the first NERVTAG meeting was held on 13 January (NERVTAG is the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group – see here https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/new-and-emerging-respiratory-virus-threats-advisory-group ).
Claim - The last rehearsal for a pandemic was a 2016 exercise codenamed Cygnus, which predicted the health service would collapse and highlighted a long list of shortcomings — including, presciently, a lack of PPE and intensive care ventilators.
Response - The Government has been extremely proactive in implementing lessons learnt around pandemic preparedness, including from Exercise Cygnus. This includes being ready with legislative proposals that could rapidly be tailored to what became the Coronavirus Act, plans to strengthen excess death planning, planning for recruitment and deployment of retired staff and volunteers, and guidance for stakeholders and sectors across government.
Claim - By February 21 the virus had already infected 76,000 people, had caused 2,300 deaths in China and was taking a foothold in Europe, with Italy recording 51 cases and two deaths the following day. Nonetheless NERVTAG, one of the key government advisory committees, decided to keep the threat level at “moderate”.
Response - This is a misrepresentation of what the threat level is. This is about the current public health danger – and on February 21, when the UK had about a dozen confirmed cases, out of a population of over 66 million, the actual threat to individuals was moderate. In terms of the potential threat, the government was clear – on 10 February the Secretary of State declared that “the incidence or transmission of novel Coronavirus constituted a serious and imminent threat to public health”.
Last edited:
Well no, that's not the case either @Wibble as Belgium locked down rather early (even before Aus did) and have almost 6000 deaths now. And then you have the case of Gothenburg and Malmö, 2 big Swedish cities that have just 126 deaths between them.
I think Stockholm (944 deaths) and most of Belgium, having half term in week 9 (Italy horror week) royally fecked them, lock down or no lock down, that half term brought back so much of the virus to these places and they were fecked regardless of measures put in place in mid-March.
All of Poland, Oslo, Copenhagen, Gothenburg (Sweden) and Malmö (Sweden) all had half term in week 7 or 8, it seems to have made all the difference.
And, you gotta come out of lockdown Wibble, as many countries now are, they will all come out before long and long before any vaccine is in place; people will continue to catch this and die, whether now or in 3-5 months. Beaches opened up in Aus I saw, before long more and more will soon open up.
The idea that lockdown has "saved lives" is such a short term one, and when you see the likes of France and Belgium, is it really even a scientific fact? Belgium have still been seeing over 1000 cases per day one full month after lockdown. It appears to take at least one month before it even starts to help the stats drop, something that we're seeing in Sweden now even without lockdown after 6 weeks of social distancing measures, as the graph of daily deaths below shows:
Sweden above, no lockdown. Social distancing started mid-March, took some weeks to have effect, peaked around 8th April, now on downward trend.
Belgium below, 18th March lockdown, took some weeks to have effect, peaked around 11th April, now on downward trend.
That'll be my last post on it for the week, unless any new data or study comes to light.
I'd hope to read more of your posts this week!!!
My impression of the tests worldwide is they're inaccurate and really require testing twice if not three times, especially those in the much praised SK.
Regarding exit plans as the new thing to jump up and down about. UK has only had one maybe two days of a low number off the back of 888 over the weekend and other countries are about two weeks ahead in the timeline, had about two weeks of lowering numbers and have just announced exit plans. UK has two weeks to announce theirs and will probably similar, if the numbers continue to fall which is a big if still. It's getting a bit silly with people desperate to find any angle to create a storm.
Regarding exit plans as the new thing to jump up and down about. UK has only had one maybe two days of a low number off the back of 888 over the weekend and other countries are about two weeks ahead in the timeline, had about two weeks of lowering numbers and have just announced exit plans. UK has two weeks to announce theirs and will probably similar, if the numbers continue to fall which is a big if still. It's getting a bit silly with people desperate to find any angle to create a storm.
Yeah but internet makes it easy to spread stupid takes. Any ridiculous theory you have, if you post it on the internet someone will bite.
80 million Americans eat fast food every day. Many probably don't even know how to cook at home. Seem pretty ill equipped to handle a lockdown.
Bollocks by the way.
2 islands on the other side of the World to where it all kicked off in Italy and we all realised that shit had gotten real. We know for sure that Italy seeded Europe.
And you’re another that completely ignores the point on Malmö and Gothenburg because you’ve already decided lockdown was the only way. You can’t explain Belgium and you can’t explain Malmö.
You have no response to the Belgium and Sweden graphs mirroring each other despite one going into lockdown on 18th March and the other not doing it.
The idea that all Scandinavian countries started on the same point is so idiotic is hard to comprehend. If they did, once again, why is Malmö in Sweden doing miles better than Copenhagen in Denmark @Wibble, a city it shares a fecking bridge with? Maybe this time, leave your bias at the door and really have a real think.
Sometimes the obvious answer is right there in front of you, Stockholm, much like Belgium, had a shit load of the virus ”within it’s borders” in mid-March, no doubt due to half term timing. That’s why it has almost 1000 deaths, and the county in Sweden worst hit (cases per 100,000 citizens)... Sörmland, also had half term in week 9.
Malmö had a nicely timed half term and has much less virus in it’s City than Copenhagen in mid-March.
I mean, at this point that is verging almost on common sense.
If this isn’t the case, I full expect you to give me any reply as to why Gothenburg and Malmö are doing so well, if lockdown was the only way.
Last edited:
The Journalist is claiming that someone within the department of health and social care created lots of "sockpuppet" twitter accounts and was using them to spread misinformation about how herd immunity was still a relevant response/ anti media / anti clap for NHS to sow dischord and create confusion.
When he went to DHSC with allegations, all of the twitter accounts were simultaneously deleted, confirming they were not individuals expressing their personal views, however cranky.
The Journalist claims to have proof they were all created by one individual within the DHSC rather than some Russian bot factory.
If this is true then it is truly explosive and would lead to resignations. Some have speculated that this is a tactic that Dominic Cummings has used before but the journalist has not made that claim.
Bollocks by the way.
2 islands on the other side of the World to where it all kicked off in Italy and we all realised that shit had gotten real.
You had exactly the same advantage - no mass infection, low population density and the ability to control your borders.
Belgium had existing mass infection. if they hadn't locked down they would have been far far worse.
Because Denmark is connected to mainland Europe I'd guess. Unless Sweden is managing the same level of distancing that other countries are doing with harsher restrictions (perhaps Swedes are very disciplined) or Swedes have some sort of natural immunity (which seems unlikely) it is undeniable that restrictions save lives. And of course not everywhere is the same. Singapore is suffering a big second wave due to the high density living conditions of expat workers for example. I really hope Sweden avoids a disaster but I fear they are being very cavalier.
Because there were fewer infections in Gothernberg and Malmo to start with would be the obvious answer. You may get away with your approach but it is very high risk and is trading lives for fewer restrictions. It is impossible that it isn't so as more social contract = more infection even if you don't yet know to what degree. The data seems clear - lockdowns are quickly followed by the curve flattening even if there are other factors.
Thanks dude.
There we go mate. Which in turn tells you there were many more in Stockholm to start with.
The last sentence is bizarre, I had literally just shown you a graph of Sweden and Denmark’s curves growing to peak and flattening in almost exactly the same time span. Are you gonna pretend you didn’t see that data?
Last edited:
@Regulus Arcturus Black
Worth pointing out when people quote Belgium's 6000 deaths that their figures count all deaths, including those outside hospital settings which many countries don't count. Unless Sweden also do so the comparison figure is less than half that 6000.
Worth pointing out when people quote Belgium's 6000 deaths that their figures count all deaths, including those outside hospital settings which many countries don't count. Unless Sweden also do so the comparison figure is less than half that 6000.
The vaccine you mention is for a specific type of bacterial pneumonia (strep pneumococcus). Covid-19 causes a viral pneumonia, for which there is no vaccine (yet!)
People with covid-19 can get “secondary” bacterial pneumonia (where bacteria start to grow in a lung damaged by the virus) which is why antibiotics are often prescribed (antibiotics kill bacteria but not viruses) These secondary infections can be caused by a number of different bacteria, of which strep pneumococcus is only one.
I fecking pm’d you about this yesterday
Over 30% of Sweden’s deaths are from nursing homes. Those not counting are Holland, Spain, Italy, UK.
As I also wrote in my PM to you, Sweden are putting any suspected covid-19 in the stats and will “correct” them later through comparing increased mortality stats.
The comparison with Belgium isn’t about numbers of deaths though, as it’s clear that Belgium, who also had week 9 half term, had a shit load more virus than Sweden in mid-March, so that’d be missing the point.
It’s the flattening of the curve and time to peak that is almost identical in Belgium (lockdown) and Sweden (no lockdown) that is telling.
Last edited:
That’s bad but this is a bit misleading.
From very early on the UK stopped testing community cases altogether. That’s what’s still happening now, right? Everyone was told to assume they have the virus and self-isolate if they have symptoms. False negatives will have zero effect on community spread so long as you’re not testing people in the community.
Different story for HCWs, mind you. False negatives for them is a disaster, as they will return to work sooner than they should. Then infect colleagues/patients.
I fecking pm’d you about this yesterday
Over 30% of Sweden’s deaths are from nursing homes. Those not counting are Holland, Spain, Italy, UK.
As I also wrote in my PM to you, Sweden are putting any suspected covid-19 in the stats and will “correct” them later through comparing increased mortality stats.
The comparison with Belgium isn’t about numbers of deaths though, as it’s clear that Belgium, who also had week 9 half term, had a shit load more virus than Sweden in mid-March, so that’d be missing the point.
It’s the flattening of the curve and time to peak that is almost identical in Belgium (lockdown) and Sweden (no lockdown) that is telling.
Shit, so you did. I'd forgotten I'd already asked that. Sorry!
I’ve seen momentum types jump all over that John Crace headline a few times know. Obviously to score points on Twitter you only need to share headlines. Nobody ever reads the articles linked. So job’s a good ‘un for retweets and likes regardless.
If they did read the article they’d realise it’s his usual (and funny) Tory bashing in which he concludes that Hancock might be marginally less of a feck up than the rest of half-wits he works with. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
Looks like the brexit comms team have been up to their usual tricks and have been setting up hundreds of fake nurse accounts calling for herd immunity, end of lockdown and proclaiming they have enough PPE etc.
Denied by Department of Health for now.
Denied by Department of Health for now.
Is there no low to which this lot won't stoop? (read the thread)
I was wondering about that. Antibiotics were used in 84% of deceased Italian patients, whilst antivirals were only used in 56% and corticosteroids in 35%. I had assumed it was for secondary infections, considering something like 97% had other illnesses, but wasn't sure.
As ever Faisal seems to be the only one at the BBC willing to do some actual journalism.
Edit: context of this is government ministers going round trying to use the large number of a billion as a defence.
Edit: context of this is government ministers going round trying to use the large number of a billion as a defence.
As far as I can work out, we can’t tell for certain whether the Tories are behind this or external agitators (e.g. Russia) but it’s nasty stuff all the same. The way they’ve ladled on all the progressive stereotypes so heavily (fake doctor is disabled, non-binary AND transitioning) makes me think of the St Petersberg bots but feck knows really.