I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
That was always the problem. Once you open up, you are going to get infections. And unless you somehow keep the R below 1 there will be exponential growth. And we’ve since realised the costs of lockdown, both financial and social, so much so that some think there should have been no lockdowns at all.
I think you could have avoided deaths in the first wave, but probably overall it’s harder to say.
Wasn't the aim to slow, rather than prevent, infections so as not to overwhelm the NHS and have people dying from lack of treatment?
Yes, at the start that was the plan. But then the numbers were coming in and they realised that it was gonna be a huge first wave. Now it would have been shit, lots more dead, huge pressure on the health services, but in the longer run the later waves would have been smaller.
I'm struggling to see how lots more dead counts as a more positive outcome.
Cummings is on about "pox parties" where people came together to deliberately get it.
Claims this was official advice at one point. Says it was all Wormald's idea.
I have no recollection of this?
Para. 3.56:
There was, however, a discussion at a meeting chaired by Mr Johnson on 12 March 2020 about whether it was possible to shield older people and the vulnerable while allowing the virus to spread among the rest of the population. At this meeting, Sir Mark Sedwill (later Lord Sedwill), Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service from October 2018 to September 2020, suggested that members of the public could be told it was better for them to catch the virus and get it over with, using an analogy of ‘chickenpox parties’ to spread the virus.111 Lord Sedwill told the Inquiry that he was seeking to explore whether there was a way of managing it spreading through those people:
“for whom the disease was likely to be unpleasant rather than dangerous, and that we could quarantine and shield those for whom it would be dangerous”.112
Mr Johnson confirmed that this formed part of:
“a free-flowing discussion … to assess whether it might be sensible to allow the vast majority of younger people to get the disease (and therefore become immune) while protecting the elderly”.113
But Mr Johnson said that the idea was “immediately dispensed with”.114 Lord Sedwill explained that he dropped the ‘chickenpox parties’ analogy because he realised that it was causing confusion as to whether he had misunderstood the seriousness of Covid-19.115 In any event, it ultimately became clear that the capabilities were not in place to make this approach a viable option in March 2020.116
At the time, the coronavirus seemed a destructive malevolence almost outside control yet it wasn't quite like the apocolyptic tales of science fiction or even the cultural resonance of the Black Death - it was clear while there was death, there wasn't wholesale mortality. Cities weren't emptying, going silent but health facilities were being overwhelmed by the nature of the virus which required more oxygen and respirator capacity than was available.
It's worth mentioning the death toll was mitigated by modern technology - had this happened even 30 years ago, there would have been more deaths.
The decision to "lock down" was primarily to reduce that pressure on the health facilities until more could be made available. I suspect those in charge knew from an early stage mortality rates were not going to be unmanageable and it was also clear from an early stage external transmission of the virus in normal circumstances was rare - the problem was large numbers of people in confined spaces (history could have told you that).
It's also now likely the virus was in the country in February and probably anything we tried in March was too little and too late - whether it came back with the half term holidaymakers or whether it was in even earlier I don't know.
One of the aspects which exacerbated the situation was the prevalence of elderly people who didn't need to be in hospital to receive care but for whom no alternative care regimen had been put in place - this remains one of the ongoing aspects of the care debate, getting those who no longer need hospital care to more appropriate places of care.
I also suspect economic, psychological and cultural considerations around lockdowns had differing elements of priority at different times but it's also worth noting many agencies performed admirably - long standarding protocols based on resilience forums at local Government level enabled, I think, a decent response from councils, the NHS, Police and other groups.
But why did coronavirus seem like such a destructive malevolence? It was because the government created a unit to frighten us into submission.
Not true, remember the news from Italy at the beginning.
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
The only thing I'm 100% sure that they got wrong was allowing Cheltenham to go ahead. That was the UK super-spreader, and certainly how I got covid the first time - from colleagues that went there.
There were x million workers using the Tube at that time. Cheltenham was a minor blip.
Sure, but X million from London. Cheltenham brought together people from all around the UK.
I worked then in an office of 300 or so. The first to fall were all the Cheltenham attendees, and then those that sat next to them etc. I find it hard to imagine that a similar effect wasn't at work elsewhere. So I think I can reasonably conclude that it was a significant factor in the spread.
The first hit local to me was before restrictions, a colleague hosted a get-together and about 2 or 3 weeks later two of the guests were dead. That was before we read about the choir in USA who had one last rehearsal together before their restrictions came into force, with a very similar outcome. Frightening times.
On those stats 25 million Brits would have died.
That was one of the curious things about it - that under apparently the same conditions one got it badly but another didn't get it at all.
Or so it seemed. Many cases were asymptomatic, which made it that much more difficult to control the spread.
Those darned asymptomatic cases..where apparently healthy people are told they're ill..🧐💩carrying a virus that can kill others.
The overall problem with the Covid lockdowns was that there was too much of it rather than not enough. I don't expect the official inquiry to say this.
Well you'd be wrong.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpq1q49r08go ...Lockdown could have been avoided completely The report says lockdown could have been avoided if steps such as social distancing and isolating those with symptoms along with members of their household had been introduced earlier than mid-March 2020. But by the time ministers took action it was already too late and a lockdown was inevitable, it says...
Does anyone have much confidence in the Covid Inquiry?
Have you read it? I've only got to chapter 4 so far and I know this field well, so I kinda suspect you haven't read it. Which rather suggests that, regardless of what it said, you'd have the same reaction. Which is probably because you've made your mind up and aren't interested in evidence.
I can remember thinking at the very start - would it be a good plan to go out and catch this early before the NHS gets overwhelmed?
Then you could wander round with impunity whilst everyone was locked away quivering in fear.
It wouldn't have worked, of course, given you could catch it more than once (as I was reminded all too clearly last month).
That it might turn out that you could catch it more than once is a very important point that key figures in government didn't understand early on (which might be due to Whitty not being clear on it) - see Chapter 3.
At the time, the coronavirus seemed a destructive malevolence almost outside control yet it wasn't quite like the apocolyptic tales of science fiction or even the cultural resonance of the Black Death - it was clear while there was death, there wasn't wholesale mortality. Cities weren't emptying, going silent but health facilities were being overwhelmed by the nature of the virus which required more oxygen and respirator capacity than was available.
It's worth mentioning the death toll was mitigated by modern technology - had this happened even 30 years ago, there would have been more deaths.
The decision to "lock down" was primarily to reduce that pressure on the health facilities until more could be made available. I suspect those in charge knew from an early stage mortality rates were not going to be unmanageable and it was also clear from an early stage external transmission of the virus in normal circumstances was rare - the problem was large numbers of people in confined spaces (history could have told you that).
It's also now likely the virus was in the country in February and probably anything we tried in March was too little and too late - whether it came back with the half term holidaymakers or whether it was in even earlier I don't know.
One of the aspects which exacerbated the situation was the prevalence of elderly people who didn't need to be in hospital to receive care but for whom no alternative care regimen had been put in place - this remains one of the ongoing aspects of the care debate, getting those who no longer need hospital care to more appropriate places of care.
I also suspect economic, psychological and cultural considerations around lockdowns had differing elements of priority at different times but it's also worth noting many agencies performed admirably - long standarding protocols based on resilience forums at local Government level enabled, I think, a decent response from councils, the NHS, Police and other groups.
But why did coronavirus seem like such a destructive malevolence? It was because the government created a unit to frighten us into submission.
Not true, remember the news from Italy at the beginning.
But it was true. There was a government team specifically to frighten people.
Evidence? Who was in the team, who ran it, what did they do to further those aims?
200 million pounds for an inquiry . Good grief what a waste of money . I won’t criticize any of the 4 nations response as it was an unprecedented time . Hindsight is a wonderful thing .
It does seem the report is attracted considerable attention across parties for the outrageous cost of 200 million
I suppose the question is- what would a reasonable cost be? How many lawyers at how much a head for a couple of years? I doubt you need that crazy a set of assumptions to say that this costs what it costs.
I'd've spent the £200 million on a more academic study (but I'm an academic and want a £200M budget). Getting access to records and witnesses was crucial, but that's not what causes expense. A lot of the cost was around giving everyone legal representation. I was asked for an evidence submission and wrote something. I was about to hand it in when I found out that the government would pay a lawyer to check what I'd written. Said lawyer did so and had no comment on my submission. So, was that a waste of money? Or would people have been too reluctant to say things if they hadn't had that sort of back-up?
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
That was always the problem. Once you open up, you are going to get infections. And unless you somehow keep the R below 1 there will be exponential growth. And we’ve since realised the costs of lockdown, both financial and social, so much so that some think there should have been no lockdowns at all.
I think you could have avoided deaths in the first wave, but probably overall it’s harder to say.
Wasn't the aim to slow, rather than prevent, infections so as not to overwhelm the NHS and have people dying from lack of treatment?
Yes, at the start that was the plan. But then the numbers were coming in and they realised that it was gonna be a huge first wave. Now it would have been shit, lots more dead, huge pressure on the health services, but in the longer run the later waves would have been smaller.
I'm struggling to see how lots more dead counts as a more positive outcome.
Whisper it softly, but if lots of the deaths were among the elderly (like me) it would have eased the present pensions/care burden.
200 million pounds for an inquiry . Good grief what a waste of money . I won’t criticize any of the 4 nations response as it was an unprecedented time . Hindsight is a wonderful thing .
It does seem the report is attracted considerable attention across parties for the outrageous cost of 200 million
I suppose the question is- what would a reasonable cost be? How many lawyers at how much a head for a couple of years? I doubt you need that crazy a set of assumptions to say that this costs what it costs.
I'd've spent the £200 million on a more academic study (but I'm an academic and want a £200M budget). Getting access to records and witnesses was crucial, but that's not what causes expense. A lot of the cost was around giving everyone legal representation. I was asked for an evidence submission and wrote something. I was about to hand it in when I found out that the government would pay a lawyer to check what I'd written. Said lawyer did so and had no comment on my submission. So, was that a waste of money? Or would people have been too reluctant to say things if they hadn't had that sort of back-up?
Would have saved a lot of money if all submissions were ruled inadmissible as self-incriminating evidence for any future prosecutions.
As I said, I've only read through to chapter 3, but it's very readable. It contains neither dense science or dense legalese. It's easy to skip the bits you're less interested in. Read it for yourselves rather than just dismissing it. It will take a bit of time, but it's a better use of your time than scrolling social media for two hours.
Now, I must off to work out why the audio on my Disney+ feed to my old telly (that I've returned to after the newer telly went phut) keeps going out of sync.
I've managed to survive my first two days back at work, even with the sudden onset of Winter
I was exhausted when I got home yesterday after an eleven hour and eleven minute shift; I just ate and went to bed. Today was a bit easier (only ten hours and ten minutes - I enjoyed the neatness of the times!), and I don't feel anywhere near so tired
I've had such long days because it's been busy, I've been slower than I was, and I've had so many people asking me where I've been, or if they knew, how I am
The care and concern from so many people has been really rather touching, and has definitely helped me deal with what would otherwise have been quite a miserable couple of days back to work
At the time, the coronavirus seemed a destructive malevolence almost outside control yet it wasn't quite like the apocolyptic tales of science fiction or even the cultural resonance of the Black Death - it was clear while there was death, there wasn't wholesale mortality. Cities weren't emptying, going silent but health facilities were being overwhelmed by the nature of the virus which required more oxygen and respirator capacity than was available.
It's worth mentioning the death toll was mitigated by modern technology - had this happened even 30 years ago, there would have been more deaths.
The decision to "lock down" was primarily to reduce that pressure on the health facilities until more could be made available. I suspect those in charge knew from an early stage mortality rates were not going to be unmanageable and it was also clear from an early stage external transmission of the virus in normal circumstances was rare - the problem was large numbers of people in confined spaces (history could have told you that).
It's also now likely the virus was in the country in February and probably anything we tried in March was too little and too late - whether it came back with the half term holidaymakers or whether it was in even earlier I don't know.
One of the aspects which exacerbated the situation was the prevalence of elderly people who didn't need to be in hospital to receive care but for whom no alternative care regimen had been put in place - this remains one of the ongoing aspects of the care debate, getting those who no longer need hospital care to more appropriate places of care.
I also suspect economic, psychological and cultural considerations around lockdowns had differing elements of priority at different times but it's also worth noting many agencies performed admirably - long standarding protocols based on resilience forums at local Government level enabled, I think, a decent response from councils, the NHS, Police and other groups.
But why did coronavirus seem like such a destructive malevolence? It was because the government created a unit to frighten us into submission.
Not true, remember the news from Italy at the beginning.
But it was true. There was a government team specifically to frighten people.
Evidence? Who was in the team, who ran it, what did they do to further those aims?
I wonder if Cookie is thinking of the nudge unit set up by Mr Cummings. But that was set up long before for other purposes. PLus a quick check shows its director Dr Halpern involved in discussions of policy in mid_March 2020 - which was well after the Italian crisis in February. This does not make a special terror propaganda unit, not least because HMG were refusing to take covid seriously during the very Italian crisis which spooked so many people.
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
That was always the problem. Once you open up, you are going to get infections. And unless you somehow keep the R below 1 there will be exponential growth. And we’ve since realised the costs of lockdown, both financial and social, so much so that some think there should have been no lockdowns at all.
I think you could have avoided deaths in the first wave, but probably overall it’s harder to say.
Wasn't the aim to slow, rather than prevent, infections so as not to overwhelm the NHS and have people dying from lack of treatment?
Yes, at the start that was the plan. But then the numbers were coming in and they realised that it was gonna be a huge first wave. Now it would have been shit, lots more dead, huge pressure on the health services, but in the longer run the later waves would have been smaller.
I'm struggling to see how lots more dead counts as a more positive outcome.
Because in simple terms it wasn't the only metric that mattered. It was a key one, but not the only one. Balances had to be struck somewhere along the line if the country wasn't to either bankrupt itself or create a whole litany of other social problems for itself that would unfurl later down the line.
Surely the correct analysis of the COVID report is next time theres a pandemic we should hand everything over to a judge who in their faultless wisdom will ensure nobody dies and we all get richer.
DeSantis is intelligent if a little dull. Hard to see him beating VP Vance for the nomination though and he didn't make many inroads when he ran in 2024. However he might be encouraged by Ronald Reagan, who failed twice to get the GOP nomination in 1968 and 1976, again President and former VP Ford before finally getting it in 1980 and winning the presidency as well
Surely the correct analysis of the COVID report is next time theres a pandemic we should hand everything over to a judge who in their faultless wisdom will ensure nobody dies and we all get richer.
The Wisdom of Soloman
Very wise, that Han Solo man. Solomon even more so
Surely the correct analysis of the COVID report is next time theres a pandemic we should hand everything over to a judge who in their faultless wisdom will ensure nobody dies and we all get richer.
The Wisdom of Soloman
The more important bits are taken care of
- all the problems about medical supplies have been sorted out. By going back to buying perishable, disposable PPE from China. With no stockpile. - The plan for the next pandemic is COVID. Just as the plan for COVID was bird flu. - No domestic vaccine production - If the next one is really airborne then the stuff the medics were wearing won’t help.
The resistance to considering modern technology applied to reusable equipment is interesting. All the objections have been answered by PPE used in other contexts - fit, cleaning, durability. Even hearing and facial display. Yet “We don’t do it like that”.
A low cost design effort could come up with a system that could be configured from a simple mask to a full movie style spacesuit. A kit of parts that you put together as required.
Surely the correct analysis of the COVID report is next time theres a pandemic we should hand everything over to a judge who in their faultless wisdom will ensure nobody dies and we all get richer.
The Wisdom of Soloman
Very wise, that Han Solo man. Solomon even more so
Further, re King Solomon, Wiki informs me that "Solomon also called Jedidiah ... " Who knew? Not me
It is perhaps always to early to call Peak Trump, but there is definitely a sense of a change in the weather this week.
Not the beginning of the end, but maybe just the end of the beginning.
Winter is coming...
I think you are wrong. The bastard has come out swinging.
He has convinced himself he is innocent of any Epstein wrongdoing, but he wants the guilty (all Dems) punished.
He has also demanded that Dem politicians questioning the legitimacy of a Trump order to law enforcement or the military are guilty of capital treason.
Stephen Miller is pure evil and is pulling Trump's strings.
Surely the correct analysis of the COVID report is next time theres a pandemic we should hand everything over to a judge who in their faultless wisdom will ensure nobody dies and we all get richer.
The Wisdom of Soloman
The more important bits are taken care of
- all the problems about medical supplies have been sorted out. By going back to buying perishable, disposable PPE from China. With no stockpile. - The plan for the next pandemic is COVID. Just as the plan for COVID was bird flu. - No domestic vaccine production - If the next one is really airborne then the stuff the medics were wearing won’t help.
The resistance to considering modern technology applied to reusable equipment is interesting. All the objections have been answered by PPE used in other contexts - fit, cleaning, durability. Even hearing and facial display. Yet “We don’t do it like that”.
A low cost design effort could come up with a system that could be configured from a simple mask to a full movie style spacesuit. A kit of parts that you put together as required.
I never quite understood what there was against reuse.
Is this an NHS MRSA type thing? Or is it thought more expensive to clean than to buy more plastic?
Given we don't throw hospital beds away after every patient I don't see the huge risk.
"Eurotunnel, the operator of the Channel Tunnel, has halted its UK projects, claiming "unsustainable" levels of taxation has made any future investments "non-viable".
The company said it had been informed its business rates would increase by some 200% from next year.
It hit out at the government, arguing that the higher costs were "clearly contrary" to ambitions of growing the economy and increasing investment."
A senior ICE official just admitted in an evidentiary hearing in Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case that someone else drafted his declaration in the case and he didn’t know what certain words meant. https://x.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1991556914598039963
A declaration given under oath, subject to penalty of perjury.
A senior ICE official just admitted in an evidentiary hearing in Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case that someone else drafted his declaration in the case and he didn’t know what certain words meant. https://x.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1991556914598039963
A declaration given under oath, subject to penalty of perjury.
Not knowing what certain words mean could condemn most of us on this board at one time or another ...
DeSantis is intelligent if a little dull. Hard to see him beating VP Vance for the nomination though and he didn't make many inroads when he ran in 2024. However he might be encouraged by Ronald Reagan, who failed twice to get the GOP nomination in 1968 and 1976, again President and former VP Ford before finally getting it in 1980 and winning the presidency as well
Ford wasn't on the 1972 GOP ticket - he only became Vice President after Agnew's resignation. Reagan ran him close in 1976 under those exceptional (and I think unique) circumstances.
Normally, the incumbent Vice President, if they decide to run, will be their party's nominee. They may or may not win the subsequent election but they would be the candidate.
Apart from the unusual case of 1976, I cannot think of an incumbent Vice President who lost his party's primary - some chose not to contest the election but I can't think of one who did wasn't the party nominee.
It is perhaps always to early to call Peak Trump, but there is definitely a sense of a change in the weather this week.
Not the beginning of the end, but maybe just the end of the beginning.
Winter is coming...
I think you are wrong. The bastard has come out swinging.
He has convinced himself he is innocent of any Epstein wrongdoing, but he wants the guilty (all Dems) punished.
He has also demanded that Dem politicians questioning the legitimacy of a Trump order to law enforcement or the military are guilty of capital treason.
Stephen Miller is pure evil and is pulling Trump's strings.
This is his wife giving Piers both barrels.....An 'interesting' family
On the pandemic, it was an awful thing on so many levels, healthwise, the deaths and lingering damage, physical and mental, the huge financial cost, the encroachment on personal freedoms, all of it was terrible, but I think the government did ok on the whole and the population (esp the key workers and young people who bore the brunt and the bio sector who came through with the vaccine) did more than ok. If I'm looking to attach blame there's an obvious culprit to my mind and it isn't Boris Johnson or Sage or anybody else who was in the frame when it hit. I blame the virus. Covid.
On the pandemic, it was an awful thing on so many levels, healthwise, the deaths and lingering damage, physical and mental, the huge financial cost, the encroachment on personal freedoms, all of it was terrible, but I think the government did ok on the whole and the population (esp the key workers and young people who bore the brunt and the bio sector who came through with the vaccine) did more than ok. If I'm looking to attach blame there's an obvious culprit to my mind and it isn't Boris Johnson or Sage or anybody else who was in the frame when it hit. I blame the virus. Covid.
On the pandemic, it was an awful thing on so many levels, healthwise, the deaths and lingering damage, physical and mental, the huge financial cost, the encroachment on personal freedoms, all of it was terrible, but I think the government did ok on the whole and the population (esp the key workers and young people who bore the brunt and the bio sector who came through with the vaccine) did more than ok. If I'm looking to attach blame there's an obvious culprit to my mind and it isn't Boris Johnson or Sage or anybody else who was in the frame when it hit. I blame the virus. Covid.
"Eurotunnel, the operator of the Channel Tunnel, has halted its UK projects, claiming "unsustainable" levels of taxation has made any future investments "non-viable".
The company said it had been informed its business rates would increase by some 200% from next year.
It hit out at the government, arguing that the higher costs were "clearly contrary" to ambitions of growing the economy and increasing investment."
What is especially insane is that EuroTunnel is looked on by the French government as prized piece of national infrastructure.
This will upset them - at a time when we are negotiating with them on multiple fronts.
At the time, the coronavirus seemed a destructive malevolence almost outside control yet it wasn't quite like the apocolyptic tales of science fiction or even the cultural resonance of the Black Death - it was clear while there was death, there wasn't wholesale mortality. Cities weren't emptying, going silent but health facilities were being overwhelmed by the nature of the virus which required more oxygen and respirator capacity than was available.
It's worth mentioning the death toll was mitigated by modern technology - had this happened even 30 years ago, there would have been more deaths.
The decision to "lock down" was primarily to reduce that pressure on the health facilities until more could be made available. I suspect those in charge knew from an early stage mortality rates were not going to be unmanageable and it was also clear from an early stage external transmission of the virus in normal circumstances was rare - the problem was large numbers of people in confined spaces (history could have told you that).
It's also now likely the virus was in the country in February and probably anything we tried in March was too little and too late - whether it came back with the half term holidaymakers or whether it was in even earlier I don't know.
One of the aspects which exacerbated the situation was the prevalence of elderly people who didn't need to be in hospital to receive care but for whom no alternative care regimen had been put in place - this remains one of the ongoing aspects of the care debate, getting those who no longer need hospital care to more appropriate places of care.
I also suspect economic, psychological and cultural considerations around lockdowns had differing elements of priority at different times but it's also worth noting many agencies performed admirably - long standarding protocols based on resilience forums at local Government level enabled, I think, a decent response from councils, the NHS, Police and other groups.
But why did coronavirus seem like such a destructive malevolence? It was because the government created a unit to frighten us into submission.
Not true, remember the news from Italy at the beginning.
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
The only thing I'm 100% sure that they got wrong was allowing Cheltenham to go ahead. That was the UK super-spreader, and certainly how I got covid the first time - from colleagues that went there.
There were x million workers using the Tube at that time. Cheltenham was a minor blip.
Sure, but X million from London. Cheltenham brought together people from all around the UK.
I worked then in an office of 300 or so. The first to fall were all the Cheltenham attendees, and then those that sat next to them etc. I find it hard to imagine that a similar effect wasn't at work elsewhere. So I think I can reasonably conclude that it was a significant factor in the spread.
The first hit local to me was before restrictions, a colleague hosted a get-together and about 2 or 3 weeks later two of the guests were dead. That was before we read about the choir in USA who had one last rehearsal together before their restrictions came into force, with a very similar outcome. Frightening times.
On those stats 25 million Brits would have died.
That was one of the curious things about it - that under apparently the same conditions one got it badly but another didn't get it at all.
Or so it seemed. Many cases were asymptomatic, which made it that much more difficult to control the spread.
Those darned asymptomatic cases..where healthy people are told they're ill..🧐💩
They were infectious, that was the problem (and a particular issue with covid). They weren't healthy. Just seemed to be, unless one tested.
Edit: I particularly say that because asymptomatic covid has a real risk of long term effects, like symptomatic does. Not so much, but it's definitely there.
Not sure asymptomatic COVID actually exists tbh, read about a case where a cyclist noticed his heart rate was elevated for his normal effort, had a COVID test and was positive. Now that's a minor symptom and one that's tricky to notice but it's not truly asymptomatic
I've heard a lot of Radio 5 while back in the van the last two days. There's been a lot of Ashes talk, and because it's in Australia and lots of people are stupid, I've heard "AM in the morning" far, far too many times
Surely the correct analysis of the COVID report is next time theres a pandemic we should hand everything over to a judge who in their faultless wisdom will ensure nobody dies and we all get richer.
The Wisdom of Soloman
The more important bits are taken care of
- all the problems about medical supplies have been sorted out. By going back to buying perishable, disposable PPE from China. With no stockpile. - The plan for the next pandemic is COVID. Just as the plan for COVID was bird flu. - No domestic vaccine production - If the next one is really airborne then the stuff the medics were wearing won’t help.
The resistance to considering modern technology applied to reusable equipment is interesting. All the objections have been answered by PPE used in other contexts - fit, cleaning, durability. Even hearing and facial display. Yet “We don’t do it like that”.
A low cost design effort could come up with a system that could be configured from a simple mask to a full movie style spacesuit. A kit of parts that you put together as required.
I never quite understood what there was against reuse.
Is this an NHS MRSA type thing? Or is it thought more expensive to clean than to buy more plastic?
Given we don't throw hospital beds away after every patient I don't see the huge risk.
In the Goode Olde Days (which weren’t) of glass syringes etc. there were all kinds of problems and scandals.
Making everything throw away and come in a sealed plastic packet solved that.
On the pandemic, it was an awful thing on so many levels, healthwise, the deaths and lingering damage, physical and mental, the huge financial cost, the encroachment on personal freedoms, all of it was terrible, but I think the government did ok on the whole and the population (esp the key workers and young people who bore the brunt and the bio sector who came through with the vaccine) did more than ok. If I'm looking to attach blame there's an obvious culprit to my mind and it isn't Boris Johnson or Sage or anybody else who was in the frame when it hit. I blame the virus. Covid.
I agree that on the whole the Johnson Government did OK. My criticism of Johnson without the benefit of hindsight is limited too.
Where I diverge from that thought is SARS pandemic planning which apparently had been comprehensively wargamed by the New Labour regime was jettisoned sometime in the late 2010s.
Lockdowns in 2020 were late by about a week on each occasion (I can understand why).
Johnson missing COBRA meetings was a dereliction of duty, although one could argue the jeopardy might have been taken more seriously in his absence.
JUST IN: Judge Sara Ellis (Obama/ILND) issues 233(!)-page opinion backing the now-stayed preliminary injunction she issued limiting federal tactics in response to anti-ICE protests in Illinois.
It is perhaps always to early to call Peak Trump, but there is definitely a sense of a change in the weather this week.
Not the beginning of the end, but maybe just the end of the beginning.
Winter is coming...
I think you are wrong. The bastard has come out swinging.
He has convinced himself he is innocent of any Epstein wrongdoing, but he wants the guilty (all Dems) punished.
He has also demanded that Dem politicians questioning the legitimacy of a Trump order to law enforcement or the military are guilty of capital treason.
Stephen Miller is pure evil and is pulling Trump's strings.
Swinging, and missing. He is losing, everywhere, and he knows it.
At the time, the coronavirus seemed a destructive malevolence almost outside control yet it wasn't quite like the apocolyptic tales of science fiction or even the cultural resonance of the Black Death - it was clear while there was death, there wasn't wholesale mortality. Cities weren't emptying, going silent but health facilities were being overwhelmed by the nature of the virus which required more oxygen and respirator capacity than was available.
It's worth mentioning the death toll was mitigated by modern technology - had this happened even 30 years ago, there would have been more deaths.
The decision to "lock down" was primarily to reduce that pressure on the health facilities until more could be made available. I suspect those in charge knew from an early stage mortality rates were not going to be unmanageable and it was also clear from an early stage external transmission of the virus in normal circumstances was rare - the problem was large numbers of people in confined spaces (history could have told you that).
It's also now likely the virus was in the country in February and probably anything we tried in March was too little and too late - whether it came back with the half term holidaymakers or whether it was in even earlier I don't know.
One of the aspects which exacerbated the situation was the prevalence of elderly people who didn't need to be in hospital to receive care but for whom no alternative care regimen had been put in place - this remains one of the ongoing aspects of the care debate, getting those who no longer need hospital care to more appropriate places of care.
I also suspect economic, psychological and cultural considerations around lockdowns had differing elements of priority at different times but it's also worth noting many agencies performed admirably - long standarding protocols based on resilience forums at local Government level enabled, I think, a decent response from councils, the NHS, Police and other groups.
But why did coronavirus seem like such a destructive malevolence? It was because the government created a unit to frighten us into submission.
Not true, remember the news from Italy at the beginning.
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
The only thing I'm 100% sure that they got wrong was allowing Cheltenham to go ahead. That was the UK super-spreader, and certainly how I got covid the first time - from colleagues that went there.
There were x million workers using the Tube at that time. Cheltenham was a minor blip.
Sure, but X million from London. Cheltenham brought together people from all around the UK.
I worked then in an office of 300 or so. The first to fall were all the Cheltenham attendees, and then those that sat next to them etc. I find it hard to imagine that a similar effect wasn't at work elsewhere. So I think I can reasonably conclude that it was a significant factor in the spread.
The first hit local to me was before restrictions, a colleague hosted a get-together and about 2 or 3 weeks later two of the guests were dead. That was before we read about the choir in USA who had one last rehearsal together before their restrictions came into force, with a very similar outcome. Frightening times.
On those stats 25 million Brits would have died.
That was one of the curious things about it - that under apparently the same conditions one got it badly but another didn't get it at all.
Or so it seemed. Many cases were asymptomatic, which made it that much more difficult to control the spread.
Those darned asymptomatic cases..where healthy people are told they're ill..🧐💩
They were infectious, that was the problem (and a particular issue with covid). They weren't healthy. Just seemed to be, unless one tested.
Edit: I particularly say that because asymptomatic covid has a real risk of long term effects, like symptomatic does. Not so much, but it's definitely there.
Not sure asymptomatic COVID actually exists tbh, read about a case where a cyclist noticed his heart rate was elevated for his normal effort, had a COVID test and was positive. Now that's a minor symptom and one that's tricky to notice but it's not truly asymptomatic
Puzzles me how asymptomatic covid is distinguished from false positives.
On the pandemic, it was an awful thing on so many levels, healthwise, the deaths and lingering damage, physical and mental, the huge financial cost, the encroachment on personal freedoms, all of it was terrible, but I think the government did ok on the whole and the population (esp the key workers and young people who bore the brunt and the bio sector who came through with the vaccine) did more than ok. If I'm looking to attach blame there's an obvious culprit to my mind and it isn't Boris Johnson or Sage or anybody else who was in the frame when it hit. I blame the virus. Covid.
Whatabout its makers?
Oh god let's not veer into 'bat v lab'. That's a river of no return.
On the pandemic, it was an awful thing on so many levels, healthwise, the deaths and lingering damage, physical and mental, the huge financial cost, the encroachment on personal freedoms, all of it was terrible, but I think the government did ok on the whole and the population (esp the key workers and young people who bore the brunt and the bio sector who came through with the vaccine) did more than ok. If I'm looking to attach blame there's an obvious culprit to my mind and it isn't Boris Johnson or Sage or anybody else who was in the frame when it hit. I blame the virus. Covid.
I agree that on the whole the Johnson Government did OK. My criticism of Johnson without the benefit of hindsight is limited too.
Where I diverge from that thought is SARS pandemic planning which apparently had been comprehensively wargamed by the New Labour regime was jettisoned sometime in the late 2010s.
Lockdowns in 2020 were late by about a week on each occasion (I can understand why).
Johnson missing COBRA meetings was a dereliction of duty, although one could argue the jeopardy might have been taken more seriously in his absence.
Yes, my 'did ok' is quite broadbrush. There were some poor decisions and some poor behaviour at the top.
On the pandemic, it was an awful thing on so many levels, healthwise, the deaths and lingering damage, physical and mental, the huge financial cost, the encroachment on personal freedoms, all of it was terrible, but I think the government did ok on the whole and the population (esp the key workers and young people who bore the brunt and the bio sector who came through with the vaccine) did more than ok. If I'm looking to attach blame there's an obvious culprit to my mind and it isn't Boris Johnson or Sage or anybody else who was in the frame when it hit. I blame the virus. Covid.
On the pandemic, it was an awful thing on so many levels, healthwise, the deaths and lingering damage, physical and mental, the huge financial cost, the encroachment on personal freedoms, all of it was terrible, but I think the government did ok on the whole and the population (esp the key workers and young people who bore the brunt and the bio sector who came through with the vaccine) did more than ok. If I'm looking to attach blame there's an obvious culprit to my mind and it isn't Boris Johnson or Sage or anybody else who was in the frame when it hit. I blame the virus. Covid.
So blame the lab.
Or the bat.
The bat from the lab is blameless, the lab otoh ...
At the time, the coronavirus seemed a destructive malevolence almost outside control yet it wasn't quite like the apocolyptic tales of science fiction or even the cultural resonance of the Black Death - it was clear while there was death, there wasn't wholesale mortality. Cities weren't emptying, going silent but health facilities were being overwhelmed by the nature of the virus which required more oxygen and respirator capacity than was available.
It's worth mentioning the death toll was mitigated by modern technology - had this happened even 30 years ago, there would have been more deaths.
The decision to "lock down" was primarily to reduce that pressure on the health facilities until more could be made available. I suspect those in charge knew from an early stage mortality rates were not going to be unmanageable and it was also clear from an early stage external transmission of the virus in normal circumstances was rare - the problem was large numbers of people in confined spaces (history could have told you that).
It's also now likely the virus was in the country in February and probably anything we tried in March was too little and too late - whether it came back with the half term holidaymakers or whether it was in even earlier I don't know.
One of the aspects which exacerbated the situation was the prevalence of elderly people who didn't need to be in hospital to receive care but for whom no alternative care regimen had been put in place - this remains one of the ongoing aspects of the care debate, getting those who no longer need hospital care to more appropriate places of care.
I also suspect economic, psychological and cultural considerations around lockdowns had differing elements of priority at different times but it's also worth noting many agencies performed admirably - long standarding protocols based on resilience forums at local Government level enabled, I think, a decent response from councils, the NHS, Police and other groups.
But why did coronavirus seem like such a destructive malevolence? It was because the government created a unit to frighten us into submission.
Not true, remember the news from Italy at the beginning.
But it was true. There was a government team specifically to frighten people.
Evidence? Who was in the team, who ran it, what did they do to further those aims?
I wonder if Cookie is thinking of the nudge unit set up by Mr Cummings. But that was set up long before for other purposes. PLus a quick check shows its director Dr Halpern involved in discussions of policy in mid_March 2020 - which was well after the Italian crisis in February. This does not make a special terror propaganda unit, not least because HMG were refusing to take covid seriously during the very Italian crisis which spooked so many people.
I may have been thinking of that. But in reply to Ben, look at the adverts they produced. They made no secret of it. The imagery, the yellow and black. They put a lot of effort into making the outdoors look alarming. It didn't happen by accident.
On the pandemic, it was an awful thing on so many levels, healthwise, the deaths and lingering damage, physical and mental, the huge financial cost, the encroachment on personal freedoms, all of it was terrible, but I think the government did ok on the whole and the population (esp the key workers and young people who bore the brunt and the bio sector who came through with the vaccine) did more than ok. If I'm looking to attach blame there's an obvious culprit to my mind and it isn't Boris Johnson or Sage or anybody else who was in the frame when it hit. I blame the virus. Covid.
So blame the lab.
Or the bat.
The bat from the lab is blameless, the lab otoh ...
More importantly, the relevant government.
Wherever the reality lies on the "totally natural" to "totally engineered" spectrum, the key thing is that the Chinese government could (and should) have been much more open about what was happening, much sooner. Given how quickly the boffins came up with multiple viable vaccines, even a month or so more notice would have had a massive effect on the global outcomes.
"Lockdowns could have been avoided entirely, Covid inquiry finds Drastic measures might not have been needed if ‘stringent restrictions’ had been put in place before March 16 2020"
Has Leon been banned or has he retired of his own wishes?
The place has been a lot more agreeable during his sabbatical. A few old names seem to have returned.
I am excitedly awaiting his new persona. Perhaps he has arrived already. He often starts his new identity with a whimper and bows out with a bang.
Any shock jock has the same problem- how do you keep shocking?
Take The Rudest Man In Britain. He started being rude about an Archdeacon, which is a pretty safe target; besides - the relevant Archdeacon was a Radio 4 regular who could fight back. He's ended up being rude about any poor bugger whose job involves wearing a lanyard.
Never Johnsonians like myself and @kinabalu are giving the big fella credit where it is due, whilst Johnsonians 'til I die Brexiteers are grumbling that he had no business locking us down.
On the pandemic, it was an awful thing on so many levels, healthwise, the deaths and lingering damage, physical and mental, the huge financial cost, the encroachment on personal freedoms, all of it was terrible, but I think the government did ok on the whole and the population (esp the key workers and young people who bore the brunt and the bio sector who came through with the vaccine) did more than ok. If I'm looking to attach blame there's an obvious culprit to my mind and it isn't Boris Johnson or Sage or anybody else who was in the frame when it hit. I blame the virus. Covid.
So blame the lab.
Or the bat.
The bat from the lab is blameless, the lab otoh ...
The origin is not known. If you've for some reason decided you do know, that's a private matter.
What a disaster that, flying in the face of the data we now have from Sweden and other states that opted for *less* stringent lockdowns rather than *harder, faster*, the British state should reach this moronic conclusion.
This is collective face-saving and motivated reasoning. The failure and panic that led to the lockdowns went so wide, and so deep, and involved so much of the political class, that to own up to it now would simply be too grave an admission. So instead we get this.
It is perhaps always to early to call Peak Trump, but there is definitely a sense of a change in the weather this week.
Not the beginning of the end, but maybe just the end of the beginning.
Winter is coming...
I think you are wrong. The bastard has come out swinging.
He has convinced himself he is innocent of any Epstein wrongdoing, but he wants the guilty (all Dems) punished.
He has also demanded that Dem politicians questioning the legitimacy of a Trump order to law enforcement or the military are guilty of capital treason.
Stephen Miller is pure evil and is pulling Trump's strings.
Swinging, and missing. He is losing, everywhere, and he knows it.
At the time, the coronavirus seemed a destructive malevolence almost outside control yet it wasn't quite like the apocolyptic tales of science fiction or even the cultural resonance of the Black Death - it was clear while there was death, there wasn't wholesale mortality. Cities weren't emptying, going silent but health facilities were being overwhelmed by the nature of the virus which required more oxygen and respirator capacity than was available.
It's worth mentioning the death toll was mitigated by modern technology - had this happened even 30 years ago, there would have been more deaths.
The decision to "lock down" was primarily to reduce that pressure on the health facilities until more could be made available. I suspect those in charge knew from an early stage mortality rates were not going to be unmanageable and it was also clear from an early stage external transmission of the virus in normal circumstances was rare - the problem was large numbers of people in confined spaces (history could have told you that).
It's also now likely the virus was in the country in February and probably anything we tried in March was too little and too late - whether it came back with the half term holidaymakers or whether it was in even earlier I don't know.
One of the aspects which exacerbated the situation was the prevalence of elderly people who didn't need to be in hospital to receive care but for whom no alternative care regimen had been put in place - this remains one of the ongoing aspects of the care debate, getting those who no longer need hospital care to more appropriate places of care.
I also suspect economic, psychological and cultural considerations around lockdowns had differing elements of priority at different times but it's also worth noting many agencies performed admirably - long standarding protocols based on resilience forums at local Government level enabled, I think, a decent response from councils, the NHS, Police and other groups.
But why did coronavirus seem like such a destructive malevolence? It was because the government created a unit to frighten us into submission.
Not true, remember the news from Italy at the beginning.
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
The only thing I'm 100% sure that they got wrong was allowing Cheltenham to go ahead. That was the UK super-spreader, and certainly how I got covid the first time - from colleagues that went there.
There were x million workers using the Tube at that time. Cheltenham was a minor blip.
Sure, but X million from London. Cheltenham brought together people from all around the UK.
I worked then in an office of 300 or so. The first to fall were all the Cheltenham attendees, and then those that sat next to them etc. I find it hard to imagine that a similar effect wasn't at work elsewhere. So I think I can reasonably conclude that it was a significant factor in the spread.
The first hit local to me was before restrictions, a colleague hosted a get-together and about 2 or 3 weeks later two of the guests were dead. That was before we read about the choir in USA who had one last rehearsal together before their restrictions came into force, with a very similar outcome. Frightening times.
On those stats 25 million Brits would have died.
That was one of the curious things about it - that under apparently the same conditions one got it badly but another didn't get it at all.
Or so it seemed. Many cases were asymptomatic, which made it that much more difficult to control the spread.
Those darned asymptomatic cases..where healthy people are told they're ill..🧐💩
They were infectious, that was the problem (and a particular issue with covid). They weren't healthy. Just seemed to be, unless one tested.
Edit: I particularly say that because asymptomatic covid has a real risk of long term effects, like symptomatic does. Not so much, but it's definitely there.
Not sure asymptomatic COVID actually exists tbh, read about a case where a cyclist noticed his heart rate was elevated for his normal effort, had a COVID test and was positive. Now that's a minor symptom and one that's tricky to notice but it's not truly asymptomatic
But there are plenty of actual examples. Enough to write scientific research papers on people who haven't had anything obvious but score positive, often to their surprise.
In any case, there is a normal level of fluctuation of mood, feelings, etc. It's only cos the cyclistr was so obsessive with fitbits and all that he even noticed.
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
That was always the problem. Once you open up, you are going to get infections. And unless you somehow keep the R below 1 there will be exponential growth. And we’ve since realised the costs of lockdown, both financial and social, so much so that some think there should have been no lockdowns at all.
I think you could have avoided deaths in the first wave, but probably overall it’s harder to say.
That seems to suggest all Rs above 1 are equal, in that they all result in 'exponential growth', and that's not really true.
If you have an R (thanks to restrictions) of 1.1, then that's a very different scenario to one where R is 3. Not only that, but as increasing numbers of people gain some natural immunity, then the R starts to fall. So, modest restrictions that get R down to around 1.1 may be all you need.
And - of course - the weather, and people's own natural risk appetite at any moment in time influence R as well. When prevalance is low, we're all relaxed, and R might well be 2 or 3. When prevalance is high, we're much less likely to go out and R will fall accordingly.
At the time, the coronavirus seemed a destructive malevolence almost outside control yet it wasn't quite like the apocolyptic tales of science fiction or even the cultural resonance of the Black Death - it was clear while there was death, there wasn't wholesale mortality. Cities weren't emptying, going silent but health facilities were being overwhelmed by the nature of the virus which required more oxygen and respirator capacity than was available.
It's worth mentioning the death toll was mitigated by modern technology - had this happened even 30 years ago, there would have been more deaths.
The decision to "lock down" was primarily to reduce that pressure on the health facilities until more could be made available. I suspect those in charge knew from an early stage mortality rates were not going to be unmanageable and it was also clear from an early stage external transmission of the virus in normal circumstances was rare - the problem was large numbers of people in confined spaces (history could have told you that).
It's also now likely the virus was in the country in February and probably anything we tried in March was too little and too late - whether it came back with the half term holidaymakers or whether it was in even earlier I don't know.
One of the aspects which exacerbated the situation was the prevalence of elderly people who didn't need to be in hospital to receive care but for whom no alternative care regimen had been put in place - this remains one of the ongoing aspects of the care debate, getting those who no longer need hospital care to more appropriate places of care.
I also suspect economic, psychological and cultural considerations around lockdowns had differing elements of priority at different times but it's also worth noting many agencies performed admirably - long standarding protocols based on resilience forums at local Government level enabled, I think, a decent response from councils, the NHS, Police and other groups.
But why did coronavirus seem like such a destructive malevolence? It was because the government created a unit to frighten us into submission.
Seriously?
Five and a bit years on and we're still hearing this nonsense.
My recollection was people were happy to withdraw into isolation and very many were frightened, if not for their own health then for the health of older relatives or relatives with health issues.
I don't think anyone thought it would last three months - three weeks at most.
No Government would undertake such a form of deliberate psychological and economic warfare on a whim - we are still feeling the economic consequences of the Covid response to this day in terms of the £300 billion or so borrowed by Sunak to keep the economy on life support.
Outside the conspiracy rabbit hole, the truth looks very different. Experts and politicians struggling to deal with an experience outside their normal world - perhaps the first time, however, we put health before wealth. Civilisation would not have ended had we refused to lock down which was an option but we'd have had a very difficult few weeks as the virus went through the population but we'd have been fine and while there would no doubt have been some short to medium term economic impact, we'd have been all right and possibly (who knows) be in a better position now.
Were mistakes made? Clearly, both at the time and subsequently. The important thing is to learn some lessons but perhaps next time the virus will be more lethal and less contagious, who knows?
Were some good things done? Yes, as well including the vaccine roll out which was excellent.
Oh, I was so sure it would be over by summer, I bought an expensive non-refundable holiday that I thought was going to be an absolute bargain.
At the time, the coronavirus seemed a destructive malevolence almost outside control yet it wasn't quite like the apocolyptic tales of science fiction or even the cultural resonance of the Black Death - it was clear while there was death, there wasn't wholesale mortality. Cities weren't emptying, going silent but health facilities were being overwhelmed by the nature of the virus which required more oxygen and respirator capacity than was available.
It's worth mentioning the death toll was mitigated by modern technology - had this happened even 30 years ago, there would have been more deaths.
The decision to "lock down" was primarily to reduce that pressure on the health facilities until more could be made available. I suspect those in charge knew from an early stage mortality rates were not going to be unmanageable and it was also clear from an early stage external transmission of the virus in normal circumstances was rare - the problem was large numbers of people in confined spaces (history could have told you that).
It's also now likely the virus was in the country in February and probably anything we tried in March was too little and too late - whether it came back with the half term holidaymakers or whether it was in even earlier I don't know.
One of the aspects which exacerbated the situation was the prevalence of elderly people who didn't need to be in hospital to receive care but for whom no alternative care regimen had been put in place - this remains one of the ongoing aspects of the care debate, getting those who no longer need hospital care to more appropriate places of care.
I also suspect economic, psychological and cultural considerations around lockdowns had differing elements of priority at different times but it's also worth noting many agencies performed admirably - long standarding protocols based on resilience forums at local Government level enabled, I think, a decent response from councils, the NHS, Police and other groups.
But why did coronavirus seem like such a destructive malevolence? It was because the government created a unit to frighten us into submission.
Not true, remember the news from Italy at the beginning.
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
The only thing I'm 100% sure that they got wrong was allowing Cheltenham to go ahead. That was the UK super-spreader, and certainly how I got covid the first time - from colleagues that went there.
There were x million workers using the Tube at that time. Cheltenham was a minor blip.
Sure, but X million from London. Cheltenham brought together people from all around the UK.
I worked then in an office of 300 or so. The first to fall were all the Cheltenham attendees, and then those that sat next to them etc. I find it hard to imagine that a similar effect wasn't at work elsewhere. So I think I can reasonably conclude that it was a significant factor in the spread.
The first hit local to me was before restrictions, a colleague hosted a get-together and about 2 or 3 weeks later two of the guests were dead. That was before we read about the choir in USA who had one last rehearsal together before their restrictions came into force, with a very similar outcome. Frightening times.
On those stats 25 million Brits would have died.
That was one of the curious things about it - that under apparently the same conditions one got it badly but another didn't get it at all.
Or so it seemed. Many cases were asymptomatic, which made it that much more difficult to control the spread.
Those darned asymptomatic cases..where healthy people are told they're ill..🧐💩
They were infectious, that was the problem (and a particular issue with covid). They weren't healthy. Just seemed to be, unless one tested.
Edit: I particularly say that because asymptomatic covid has a real risk of long term effects, like symptomatic does. Not so much, but it's definitely there.
Not sure asymptomatic COVID actually exists tbh, read about a case where a cyclist noticed his heart rate was elevated for his normal effort, had a COVID test and was positive. Now that's a minor symptom and one that's tricky to notice but it's not truly asymptomatic
Puzzles me how asymptomatic covid is distinguished from false positives.
Excellent point. But one simply retests with a more specific and different test. Edit: then one gets a multiplier effect on the false positive rates from each, only they're relatively small fractions anyway to begin with.
Surely the correct analysis of the COVID report is next time theres a pandemic we should hand everything over to a judge who in their faultless wisdom will ensure nobody dies and we all get richer.
The Wisdom of Soloman
The more important bits are taken care of
- all the problems about medical supplies have been sorted out. By going back to buying perishable, disposable PPE from China. With no stockpile. - The plan for the next pandemic is COVID. Just as the plan for COVID was bird flu. - No domestic vaccine production - If the next one is really airborne then the stuff the medics were wearing won’t help.
The resistance to considering modern technology applied to reusable equipment is interesting. All the objections have been answered by PPE used in other contexts - fit, cleaning, durability. Even hearing and facial display. Yet “We don’t do it like that”.
A low cost design effort could come up with a system that could be configured from a simple mask to a full movie style spacesuit. A kit of parts that you put together as required.
I never quite understood what there was against reuse.
Is this an NHS MRSA type thing? Or is it thought more expensive to clean than to buy more plastic?
Given we don't throw hospital beds away after every patient I don't see the huge risk.
In the Goode Olde Days (which weren’t) of glass syringes etc. there were all kinds of problems and scandals.
Making everything throw away and come in a sealed plastic packet solved that.
So it’s seen as modern.
Prions ... *impossible* to clean the buggers off, apparently.
For anyone who might be interested in such things, a nice 30 min video on the regeneration of Manchester. I don't think even I'd appreciated the scale of growth since the pandemic - more growth in the past 6 years than the preceding 20. https://youtu.be/VPkLUOfugjo?si=zi4WBfzmPIVx3pId
Never Johnsonians like myself and @kinabalu are giving the big fella credit where it is due, whilst Johnsonians 'til I die Brexiteers are grumbling that he had no business locking us down.
It's a funny old game Saint.
Libertarian credentials being desperately reclaimed.
One of my strongest trivial (as opposed to serious) memories of the pandemic were those freedom fighters reacting to having to mask up at Tesco as if it were one day in the life of Ivan Denisovich.
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
That was always the problem. Once you open up, you are going to get infections. And unless you somehow keep the R below 1 there will be exponential growth. And we’ve since realised the costs of lockdown, both financial and social, so much so that some think there should have been no lockdowns at all.
I think you could have avoided deaths in the first wave, but probably overall it’s harder to say.
That seems to suggest all Rs above 1 are equal, in that they all result in 'exponential growth', and that's not really true.
If you have an R (thanks to restrictions) of 1.1, then that's a very different scenario to one where R is 3. Not only that, but as increasing numbers of people gain some natural immunity, then the R starts to fall. So, modest restrictions that get R down to around 1.1 may be all you need.
And - of course - the weather, and people's own natural risk appetite at any moment in time influence R as well. When prevalance is low, we're all relaxed, and R might well be 2 or 3. When prevalance is high, we're much less likely to go out and R will fall accordingly.
See also: carbon dioxide emissions.
As long as humanity is pumping CO₂ into the atmosphere faster than the ecosystem can assimilate it, we have a problem. But there is a massive difference between doing so at a growing rate (where we were a few years ago), at a roughly stable rate (where we roughly are) and at a declining rate (where we should be soon). Going from "terrible" to "bad" is still progress.
(See also comparison of 2019-24 governments with the present government, unless it really triggers you.)
Never Johnsonians like myself and @kinabalu are giving the big fella credit where it is due, whilst Johnsonians 'til I die Brexiteers are grumbling that he had no business locking us down.
It's a funny old game Saint.
Libertarian credentials being desperately reclaimed.
One of my strongest trivial (as opposed to serious) memories of the pandemic were those freedom fighters reacting to having to mask up at Tesco as if it were one day in the life of Ivan Denisovich.
Covid made me realise the fragmentation fo modern society. As late as HIV, and for years after, you could advertise on a limited number of TV channels and maybe a dozen newspapers and get the government message across directly to almost all the nation.
Never Johnsonians like myself and @kinabalu are giving the big fella credit where it is due, whilst Johnsonians 'til I die Brexiteers are grumbling that he had no business locking us down.
It's a funny old game Saint.
Libertarian credentials being desperately reclaimed.
One of my strongest trivial (as opposed to serious) memories of the pandemic were those freedom fighters reacting to having to mask up at Tesco as if it were one day in the life of Ivan Denisovich.
Nasal Brexit Party members explaining wearing a mask was akin to wearing one's underpants on one's face is an unfavorable memory of mine
And to think these f****** might be in Government in four years time.
Never Johnsonians like myself and @kinabalu are giving the big fella credit where it is due, whilst Johnsonians 'til I die Brexiteers are grumbling that he had no business locking us down.
It's a funny old game Saint.
Libertarian credentials being desperately reclaimed.
One of my strongest trivial (as opposed to serious) memories of the pandemic were those freedom fighters reacting to having to mask up at Tesco as if it were one day in the life of Ivan Denisovich.
Covid made me realise the fragmentation fo modern society. As late as HIV, and for years after, you could advertise on a limited number of TV channels and maybe a dozen newspapers and get the government message across directly to almost all the nation.
Yes. Boris would have got big numbers for his Stay Home address though I'd have thought?
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
That was always the problem. Once you open up, you are going to get infections. And unless you somehow keep the R below 1 there will be exponential growth. And we’ve since realised the costs of lockdown, both financial and social, so much so that some think there should have been no lockdowns at all.
I think you could have avoided deaths in the first wave, but probably overall it’s harder to say.
Wasn't the aim to slow, rather than prevent, infections so as not to overwhelm the NHS and have people dying from lack of treatment?
Yes, at the start that was the plan. But then the numbers were coming in and they realised that it was gonna be a huge first wave. Now it would have been shit, lots more dead, huge pressure on the health services, but in the longer run the later waves would have been smaller.
I'm struggling to see how lots more dead counts as a more positive outcome.
Because if we all had been infected by say May 2020, then subsequent waves would have been far better and with less damage to the economy. It’s possible that overall deaths might have been less. We will never know, and politically it was an impossible choice.
Never Johnsonians like myself and @kinabalu are giving the big fella credit where it is due, whilst Johnsonians 'til I die Brexiteers are grumbling that he had no business locking us down.
It's a funny old game Saint.
Libertarian credentials being desperately reclaimed.
One of my strongest trivial (as opposed to serious) memories of the pandemic were those freedom fighters reacting to having to mask up at Tesco as if it were one day in the life of Ivan Denisovich.
Covid made me realise the fragmentation fo modern society. As late as HIV, and for years after, you could advertise on a limited number of TV channels and maybe a dozen newspapers and get the government message across directly to almost all the nation.
Yes. Boris would have got big numbers for his Stay Home address though I'd have thought?
His messaging was pretty good. It's a shame he didn't believe a word of it himself.
Never Johnsonians like myself and @kinabalu are giving the big fella credit where it is due, whilst Johnsonians 'til I die Brexiteers are grumbling that he had no business locking us down.
It's a funny old game Saint.
Libertarian credentials being desperately reclaimed.
One of my strongest trivial (as opposed to serious) memories of the pandemic were those freedom fighters reacting to having to mask up at Tesco as if it were one day in the life of Ivan Denisovich.
Covid made me realise the fragmentation fo modern society. As late as HIV, and for years after, you could advertise on a limited number of TV channels and maybe a dozen newspapers and get the government message across directly to almost all the nation.
Yes. Boris would have got big numbers for his Stay Home address though I'd have thought?
Would he, seriously? It's not as if we were all watching News at 6 or C4 at 7 pm (if memory serves). It was mediated by any number of channels and commentators.
And more informational stuff certainly was mediated, to put it too politely - got derailed in scotch eggs etc.
There's perhaps a case for the TV and media equivalent of the compulsory mobile phone warning system. Just a thought.
What a disaster that, flying in the face of the data we now have from Sweden and other states that opted for *less* stringent lockdowns rather than *harder, faster*, the British state should reach this moronic conclusion.
This is collective face-saving and motivated reasoning. The failure and panic that led to the lockdowns went so wide, and so deep, and involved so much of the political class, that to own up to it now would simply be too grave an admission. So instead we get this.
I think Sayers is omitting the important thing: the public were (at least initially) wildly pro-lockdown, and the de-jure lockdown by the Government was preceded by a widespread de-facto lockdown caused by people staying home because they were frightened. During COVID the British were given the choice between safety and freedom, and grabbed the former with both hands whilst kicking the latter in the nuts, whilst imposing the pro-lockdown views of the majority against dissenters by any means available, regardless of legality. Sumption is scathing about the initial legality of the lockdown and the implications for future governance, and I agree with him.
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
That was always the problem. Once you open up, you are going to get infections. And unless you somehow keep the R below 1 there will be exponential growth. And we’ve since realised the costs of lockdown, both financial and social, so much so that some think there should have been no lockdowns at all.
I think you could have avoided deaths in the first wave, but probably overall it’s harder to say.
Wasn't the aim to slow, rather than prevent, infections so as not to overwhelm the NHS and have people dying from lack of treatment?
Yes, at the start that was the plan. But then the numbers were coming in and they realised that it was gonna be a huge first wave. Now it would have been shit, lots more dead, huge pressure on the health services, but in the longer run the later waves would have been smaller.
I'm struggling to see how lots more dead counts as a more positive outcome.
Because if we all had been infected by say May 2020, then subsequent waves would have been far better and with less damage to the economy. It’s possible that overall deaths might have been less. We will never know, and politically it was an impossible choice.
Didn't wave 1 infect about 10% of us? Enough cases to almost cause NHS collapse, but nowhere near enough to dent the progress of the plague, as shown by wave 2. Immunity-by-infection was a neat idea, but it didn't work with the parameters of COVID.
And the kicker? Infection by classic COVID didn't provide complete immunity to variants. If anyone writes the dystopian alt-history of "Operation Wash Over", the final scene will be news of a variant...
It is only mentioned once in the report today and is a line saying "modelling has established" this figure. Since there is not a single reference in the document to where one can see the evidence that produced this figure I'm already sceptical. Presumably the only way to find how the Judge came to this conclusion is to plough through the millions of pages of witness statements and so on??
It is only mentioned once in the report today and is a line saying "modelling has established" this figure. Since there is not a single reference in the document to where one can see the evidence that produced this figure I'm already sceptical. Presumably the only way to find how the Judge came to this conclusion is to plough through the millions of pages of witness statements and so on??
I would have thought it a reliable statistical extrapolation.
1. Witkoff and Dmitriev cooked up a Kremlin wish-list to show the Ukrainians, and Dmitriev got feisty and leaked it prematurely to make it manifest, sensing Zelensky was too weak to say "no."
2. Trump told Witkoff, "Great job, Steve, keep it up, I'm with you all the way," without knowing the full details or anticipating what a shit show would ensue or appreciating just how unworkable this thing is. (He may have even been encouraged by Kushner in this respect; Jared believing he's Kissinger after Gaza.)
3. There is now a mad dash to accelerate a "framework" or "draft" or "living document" or "blueprint" written in invisible ink into a codified peace plan before Santa comes down the chimney because everyone with two IQ points in the administration and on the Hill is trying to find out just what the fuck is going on and how to stop it.
4. The Europeans are getting ready to visit "Daddy" again to talk some sense into him.
5. Official Moscow is hanging fire, waiting to see what happens now that Kirill has tossed a grenade into the works.
6. Rubio is hanging fire, waiting to see what happens now that Dim Philby has stepped on his own crank again.
At the time, the coronavirus seemed a destructive malevolence almost outside control yet it wasn't quite like the apocolyptic tales of science fiction or even the cultural resonance of the Black Death - it was clear while there was death, there wasn't wholesale mortality. Cities weren't emptying, going silent but health facilities were being overwhelmed by the nature of the virus which required more oxygen and respirator capacity than was available.
It's worth mentioning the death toll was mitigated by modern technology - had this happened even 30 years ago, there would have been more deaths.
The decision to "lock down" was primarily to reduce that pressure on the health facilities until more could be made available. I suspect those in charge knew from an early stage mortality rates were not going to be unmanageable and it was also clear from an early stage external transmission of the virus in normal circumstances was rare - the problem was large numbers of people in confined spaces (history could have told you that).
It's also now likely the virus was in the country in February and probably anything we tried in March was too little and too late - whether it came back with the half term holidaymakers or whether it was in even earlier I don't know.
One of the aspects which exacerbated the situation was the prevalence of elderly people who didn't need to be in hospital to receive care but for whom no alternative care regimen had been put in place - this remains one of the ongoing aspects of the care debate, getting those who no longer need hospital care to more appropriate places of care.
I also suspect economic, psychological and cultural considerations around lockdowns had differing elements of priority at different times but it's also worth noting many agencies performed admirably - long standarding protocols based on resilience forums at local Government level enabled, I think, a decent response from councils, the NHS, Police and other groups.
But why did coronavirus seem like such a destructive malevolence? It was because the government created a unit to frighten us into submission.
Not true, remember the news from Italy at the beginning.
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
The only thing I'm 100% sure that they got wrong was allowing Cheltenham to go ahead. That was the UK super-spreader, and certainly how I got covid the first time - from colleagues that went there.
There were x million workers using the Tube at that time. Cheltenham was a minor blip.
Sure, but X million from London. Cheltenham brought together people from all around the UK.
I worked then in an office of 300 or so. The first to fall were all the Cheltenham attendees, and then those that sat next to them etc. I find it hard to imagine that a similar effect wasn't at work elsewhere. So I think I can reasonably conclude that it was a significant factor in the spread.
The first hit local to me was before restrictions, a colleague hosted a get-together and about 2 or 3 weeks later two of the guests were dead. That was before we read about the choir in USA who had one last rehearsal together before their restrictions came into force, with a very similar outcome. Frightening times.
On those stats 25 million Brits would have died.
That was one of the curious things about it - that under apparently the same conditions one got it badly but another didn't get it at all.
Or so it seemed. Many cases were asymptomatic, which made it that much more difficult to control the spread.
Those darned asymptomatic cases..where healthy people are told they're ill..🧐💩
They were infectious, that was the problem (and a particular issue with covid). They weren't healthy. Just seemed to be, unless one tested.
Edit: I particularly say that because asymptomatic covid has a real risk of long term effects, like symptomatic does. Not so much, but it's definitely there.
Not sure asymptomatic COVID actually exists tbh, read about a case where a cyclist noticed his heart rate was elevated for his normal effort, had a COVID test and was positive. Now that's a minor symptom and one that's tricky to notice but it's not truly asymptomatic
But there are plenty of actual examples. Enough to write scientific research papers on people who haven't had anything obvious but score positive, often to their surprise.
In any case, there is a normal level of fluctuation of mood, feelings, etc. It's only cos the cyclistr was so obsessive with fitbits and all that he even noticed.
Edit: rather impressive really.
My Trust was part of a study in the summer of 2000, in which we were all tested for covid antibodies. Obviously hospital staff were particularly exposed as we were working and often in contact with infectious patients, though I was covering non-Covid patients at that time. We had virtually no PPE, indeed were banned from wearing masks so those working with covid patients could have them.
Only 10% of us had antibodies, and when the results came back some (like me) were surprised to be negative and others surprised to be positive. For herd immunity the immunity rate would have to be close to 80%. So despite heavy exposure occupationally, with many ethnic staff and Leicester being a particular hotspot (we never fully unlocked that summer, unlike the rest of the UK) we were only a tiny way towards herd immunity.
"letting it rip" would have been carnage. I lost a dear friend in that wave.
"Lockdowns could have been avoided entirely, Covid inquiry finds Drastic measures might not have been needed if ‘stringent restrictions’ had been put in place before March 16 2020"
Yes, but. That’s hindsight talking. Show me an example of a western, open nation that locked down early enough to avoid a big wave in 2020. Aus and NZ don’t count due to their isolation.
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
That was always the problem. Once you open up, you are going to get infections. And unless you somehow keep the R below 1 there will be exponential growth. And we’ve since realised the costs of lockdown, both financial and social, so much so that some think there should have been no lockdowns at all.
I think you could have avoided deaths in the first wave, but probably overall it’s harder to say.
Wasn't the aim to slow, rather than prevent, infections so as not to overwhelm the NHS and have people dying from lack of treatment?
Yes, at the start that was the plan. But then the numbers were coming in and they realised that it was gonna be a huge first wave. Now it would have been shit, lots more dead, huge pressure on the health services, but in the longer run the later waves would have been smaller.
I'm struggling to see how lots more dead counts as a more positive outcome.
Because if we all had been infected by say May 2020, then subsequent waves would have been far better and with less damage to the economy. It’s possible that overall deaths might have been less. We will never know, and politically it was an impossible choice.
Didn't wave 1 infect about 10% of us? Enough cases to almost cause NHS collapse, but nowhere near enough to dent the progress of the plague, as shown by wave 2. Immunity-by-infection was a neat idea, but it didn't work with the parameters of COVID.
And the kicker? Infection by classic COVID didn't provide complete immunity to variants. If anyone writes the dystopian alt-history of "Operation Wash Over", the final scene will be news of a variant...
While prior infection didn’t stop reinfection, some protection would result, as with vaccination. So yes you can, and lots of us have, catch covid multiple times. But as your immune system is no longer naive, the outcomes tend to be better.
It is only mentioned once in the report today and is a line saying "modelling has established" this figure. Since there is not a single reference in the document to where one can see the evidence that produced this figure I'm already sceptical. Presumably the only way to find how the Judge came to this conclusion is to plough through the millions of pages of witness statements and so on??
I would have thought it a reliable statistical extrapolation.
I’m not convinced. We were working from home already. Anecdotally a lot of people had locked themselves down. Some studies suggest that the R was already below 1 when we locked down (data is tricky as a lot of early data is based on hospital admission alone, as testing was sparse). It’s probably a bit like the Laffer curve.
At the time, the coronavirus seemed a destructive malevolence almost outside control yet it wasn't quite like the apocolyptic tales of science fiction or even the cultural resonance of the Black Death - it was clear while there was death, there wasn't wholesale mortality. Cities weren't emptying, going silent but health facilities were being overwhelmed by the nature of the virus which required more oxygen and respirator capacity than was available.
It's worth mentioning the death toll was mitigated by modern technology - had this happened even 30 years ago, there would have been more deaths.
The decision to "lock down" was primarily to reduce that pressure on the health facilities until more could be made available. I suspect those in charge knew from an early stage mortality rates were not going to be unmanageable and it was also clear from an early stage external transmission of the virus in normal circumstances was rare - the problem was large numbers of people in confined spaces (history could have told you that).
It's also now likely the virus was in the country in February and probably anything we tried in March was too little and too late - whether it came back with the half term holidaymakers or whether it was in even earlier I don't know.
One of the aspects which exacerbated the situation was the prevalence of elderly people who didn't need to be in hospital to receive care but for whom no alternative care regimen had been put in place - this remains one of the ongoing aspects of the care debate, getting those who no longer need hospital care to more appropriate places of care.
I also suspect economic, psychological and cultural considerations around lockdowns had differing elements of priority at different times but it's also worth noting many agencies performed admirably - long standarding protocols based on resilience forums at local Government level enabled, I think, a decent response from councils, the NHS, Police and other groups.
But why did coronavirus seem like such a destructive malevolence? It was because the government created a unit to frighten us into submission.
Not true, remember the news from Italy at the beginning.
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
The only thing I'm 100% sure that they got wrong was allowing Cheltenham to go ahead. That was the UK super-spreader, and certainly how I got covid the first time - from colleagues that went there.
There were x million workers using the Tube at that time. Cheltenham was a minor blip.
Sure, but X million from London. Cheltenham brought together people from all around the UK.
I worked then in an office of 300 or so. The first to fall were all the Cheltenham attendees, and then those that sat next to them etc. I find it hard to imagine that a similar effect wasn't at work elsewhere. So I think I can reasonably conclude that it was a significant factor in the spread.
The first hit local to me was before restrictions, a colleague hosted a get-together and about 2 or 3 weeks later two of the guests were dead. That was before we read about the choir in USA who had one last rehearsal together before their restrictions came into force, with a very similar outcome. Frightening times.
On those stats 25 million Brits would have died.
That was one of the curious things about it - that under apparently the same conditions one got it badly but another didn't get it at all.
Or so it seemed. Many cases were asymptomatic, which made it that much more difficult to control the spread.
Those darned asymptomatic cases..where healthy people are told they're ill..🧐💩
They were infectious, that was the problem (and a particular issue with covid). They weren't healthy. Just seemed to be, unless one tested.
Edit: I particularly say that because asymptomatic covid has a real risk of long term effects, like symptomatic does. Not so much, but it's definitely there.
Not sure asymptomatic COVID actually exists tbh, read about a case where a cyclist noticed his heart rate was elevated for his normal effort, had a COVID test and was positive. Now that's a minor symptom and one that's tricky to notice but it's not truly asymptomatic
But there are plenty of actual examples. Enough to write scientific research papers on people who haven't had anything obvious but score positive, often to their surprise.
In any case, there is a normal level of fluctuation of mood, feelings, etc. It's only cos the cyclistr was so obsessive with fitbits and all that he even noticed.
Edit: rather impressive really.
My Trust was part of a study in the summer of 2000, in which we were all tested for covid antibodies. Obviously hospital staff were particularly exposed as we were working and often in contact with infectious patients, though I was covering non-Covid patients at that time. We had virtually no PPE, indeed were banned from wearing masks so those working with covid patients could have them.
Only 10% of us had antibodies, and when the results came back some (like me) were surprised to be negative and others surprised to be positive. For herd immunity the immunity rate would have to be close to 80%. So despite heavy exposure occupationally, with many ethnic staff and Leicester being a particular hotspot (we never fully unlocked that summer, unlike the rest of the UK) we were only a tiny way towards herd immunity.
"letting it rip" would have been carnage. I lost a dear friend in that wave.
My unscientific take on it is this. Original covid wasn’t that infectious. I spent many a tea/coffee break with my colleague who had covid without realising in March 2020. He had taste and smell,disturbance, a fever etc and then tested positive for antibodies in May. Yet I didn’t get it from him. Later strains were way more infectious.
At the time, the coronavirus seemed a destructive malevolence almost outside control yet it wasn't quite like the apocolyptic tales of science fiction or even the cultural resonance of the Black Death - it was clear while there was death, there wasn't wholesale mortality. Cities weren't emptying, going silent but health facilities were being overwhelmed by the nature of the virus which required more oxygen and respirator capacity than was available.
It's worth mentioning the death toll was mitigated by modern technology - had this happened even 30 years ago, there would have been more deaths.
The decision to "lock down" was primarily to reduce that pressure on the health facilities until more could be made available. I suspect those in charge knew from an early stage mortality rates were not going to be unmanageable and it was also clear from an early stage external transmission of the virus in normal circumstances was rare - the problem was large numbers of people in confined spaces (history could have told you that).
It's also now likely the virus was in the country in February and probably anything we tried in March was too little and too late - whether it came back with the half term holidaymakers or whether it was in even earlier I don't know.
One of the aspects which exacerbated the situation was the prevalence of elderly people who didn't need to be in hospital to receive care but for whom no alternative care regimen had been put in place - this remains one of the ongoing aspects of the care debate, getting those who no longer need hospital care to more appropriate places of care.
I also suspect economic, psychological and cultural considerations around lockdowns had differing elements of priority at different times but it's also worth noting many agencies performed admirably - long standarding protocols based on resilience forums at local Government level enabled, I think, a decent response from councils, the NHS, Police and other groups.
But why did coronavirus seem like such a destructive malevolence? It was because the government created a unit to frighten us into submission.
Not true, remember the news from Italy at the beginning.
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
The only thing I'm 100% sure that they got wrong was allowing Cheltenham to go ahead. That was the UK super-spreader, and certainly how I got covid the first time - from colleagues that went there.
There were x million workers using the Tube at that time. Cheltenham was a minor blip.
Sure, but X million from London. Cheltenham brought together people from all around the UK.
I worked then in an office of 300 or so. The first to fall were all the Cheltenham attendees, and then those that sat next to them etc. I find it hard to imagine that a similar effect wasn't at work elsewhere. So I think I can reasonably conclude that it was a significant factor in the spread.
The first hit local to me was before restrictions, a colleague hosted a get-together and about 2 or 3 weeks later two of the guests were dead. That was before we read about the choir in USA who had one last rehearsal together before their restrictions came into force, with a very similar outcome. Frightening times.
On those stats 25 million Brits would have died.
That was one of the curious things about it - that under apparently the same conditions one got it badly but another didn't get it at all.
Or so it seemed. Many cases were asymptomatic, which made it that much more difficult to control the spread.
Those darned asymptomatic cases..where healthy people are told they're ill..🧐💩
They were infectious, that was the problem (and a particular issue with covid). They weren't healthy. Just seemed to be, unless one tested.
Edit: I particularly say that because asymptomatic covid has a real risk of long term effects, like symptomatic does. Not so much, but it's definitely there.
Not sure asymptomatic COVID actually exists tbh, read about a case where a cyclist noticed his heart rate was elevated for his normal effort, had a COVID test and was positive. Now that's a minor symptom and one that's tricky to notice but it's not truly asymptomatic
But there are plenty of actual examples. Enough to write scientific research papers on people who haven't had anything obvious but score positive, often to their surprise.
In any case, there is a normal level of fluctuation of mood, feelings, etc. It's only cos the cyclistr was so obsessive with fitbits and all that he even noticed.
Edit: rather impressive really.
My Trust was part of a study in the summer of 2000, in which we were all tested for covid antibodies. Obviously hospital staff were particularly exposed as we were working and often in contact with infectious patients, though I was covering non-Covid patients at that time. We had virtually no PPE, indeed were banned from wearing masks so those working with covid patients could have them.
Only 10% of us had antibodies, and when the results came back some (like me) were surprised to be negative and others surprised to be positive. For herd immunity the immunity rate would have to be close to 80%. So despite heavy exposure occupationally, with many ethnic staff and Leicester being a particular hotspot (we never fully unlocked that summer, unlike the rest of the UK) we were only a tiny way towards herd immunity.
"letting it rip" would have been carnage. I lost a dear friend in that wave.
I wonder what the anti-body rate would have been in Sweden in Summer 2020.
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
That was always the problem. Once you open up, you are going to get infections. And unless you somehow keep the R below 1 there will be exponential growth. And we’ve since realised the costs of lockdown, both financial and social, so much so that some think there should have been no lockdowns at all.
I think you could have avoided deaths in the first wave, but probably overall it’s harder to say.
Wasn't the aim to slow, rather than prevent, infections so as not to overwhelm the NHS and have people dying from lack of treatment?
Yes, at the start that was the plan. But then the numbers were coming in and they realised that it was gonna be a huge first wave. Now it would have been shit, lots more dead, huge pressure on the health services, but in the longer run the later waves would have been smaller.
I'm struggling to see how lots more dead counts as a more positive outcome.
Because if we all had been infected by say May 2020, then subsequent waves would have been far better and with less damage to the economy. It’s possible that overall deaths might have been less. We will never know, and politically it was an impossible choice.
If we'd all been infected by May 2020, the result would almost certainly have been absolute carnage. Many, many thousands would have died unnecessarily due to lack of hospital capacity to keep them alive. Remember, many of those infected before vaccines arrived were only kept alive with the help of ventilators, including Mr Johnson himself IIRC.
Phew, Newsnight with Paddy O' Boris avoiding the COVID elephant in the room as top story.
In the interests of balance, if Johnson is to be criticised for any COVID shortcomings, surely the BBC has to apply the same criticisms to Starmer too.
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
That was always the problem. Once you open up, you are going to get infections. And unless you somehow keep the R below 1 there will be exponential growth. And we’ve since realised the costs of lockdown, both financial and social, so much so that some think there should have been no lockdowns at all.
I think you could have avoided deaths in the first wave, but probably overall it’s harder to say.
Wasn't the aim to slow, rather than prevent, infections so as not to overwhelm the NHS and have people dying from lack of treatment?
Yes, at the start that was the plan. But then the numbers were coming in and they realised that it was gonna be a huge first wave. Now it would have been shit, lots more dead, huge pressure on the health services, but in the longer run the later waves would have been smaller.
I'm struggling to see how lots more dead counts as a more positive outcome.
Because if we all had been infected by say May 2020, then subsequent waves would have been far better and with less damage to the economy. It’s possible that overall deaths might have been less. We will never know, and politically it was an impossible choice.
Albeit, we do know what happened in Sweden (which admittedly had two advantages over us - i.e. lower population density and a much higher % of people living alone). And we also know that humans respond to what's going on - so in a world without lockdowns, you still get effective lockdowns as people worry about Covid incidence and shelter at home.
Personally, I think Southern California got it right. Restrictions, rather than lockdown, so no one was ever denied socialisation.
And restrictions where severity increased or decreased according to hospital ICU usage.
It was broadly transparent, and it kept most things open most of the time. And even when restrictions were most stringent, you were never denied the ability to go for a walk with a friend.
Never Johnsonians like myself and @kinabalu are giving the big fella credit where it is due, whilst Johnsonians 'til I die Brexiteers are grumbling that he had no business locking us down.
It's a funny old game Saint.
Libertarian credentials being desperately reclaimed.
One of my strongest trivial (as opposed to serious) memories of the pandemic were those freedom fighters reacting to having to mask up at Tesco as if it were one day in the life of Ivan Denisovich.
Covid made me realise the fragmentation fo modern society. As late as HIV, and for years after, you could advertise on a limited number of TV channels and maybe a dozen newspapers and get the government message across directly to almost all the nation.
Yes. Boris would have got big numbers for his Stay Home address though I'd have thought?
I'll wait to read the detail from covid but have to say I'm going to take a hell of a lot of convincing that locking down a week or two earlier would have reduced the overall deaths by 10ks they are claiming. Surely the deaths are simply postponed at that stage as there was no vaccine?
That was always the problem. Once you open up, you are going to get infections. And unless you somehow keep the R below 1 there will be exponential growth. And we’ve since realised the costs of lockdown, both financial and social, so much so that some think there should have been no lockdowns at all.
I think you could have avoided deaths in the first wave, but probably overall it’s harder to say.
Wasn't the aim to slow, rather than prevent, infections so as not to overwhelm the NHS and have people dying from lack of treatment?
Yes, at the start that was the plan. But then the numbers were coming in and they realised that it was gonna be a huge first wave. Now it would have been shit, lots more dead, huge pressure on the health services, but in the longer run the later waves would have been smaller.
I'm struggling to see how lots more dead counts as a more positive outcome.
Because if we all had been infected by say May 2020, then subsequent waves would have been far better and with less damage to the economy. It’s possible that overall deaths might have been less. We will never know, and politically it was an impossible choice.
If we'd all been infected by May 2020, the result would almost certainly have been absolute carnage. Many, many thousands would have died unnecessarily due to lack of hospital capacity to keep them alive. Remember, many of those infected before vaccines arrived were only kept alive with the help of ventilators, including Mr Johnson himself IIRC.
Yes, and I should say I’m not suggesting we should have done this. I can understand why some do say this though.
‼️⚡️You were searching for some answers? - here you have it. From the US security council just now:
Ukraine has officially received from the American side a draft plan. We outline the fundamental principles that matter to our people. We agree to work on the plan's provisions in a way that would bring about a just end to the war.
In this context, allow me to make several critical points. 1-First, while Ukraine stands ready to engage in meaningful negotiations to end this war — including at the leaders’ level — our red lines are clear and unwavering. There will never be any recognition, formal or otherwise, of Ukrainian territory temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation as Russian. Our land is not for sale.
Ukraine will not accept any limits on its right to self-defense or on the size and capabilities of our Armed Forces. Nor will we tolerate any infringement on our sovereignty, including our sovereign right to choose the alliances we want to join. Any genuine peace process must respect a fundamental principle: nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, and nothing about Europe without Europe.
And let me be equally clear: we will not reward the genocidal intent that underpins Russian aggression by undermining our identity, including our language.
2- Second, support for Ukraine is indispensable. Peace requires strengthened security and sustained financial assistance to Ukraine. Reinforcing Ukraine's defense capabilities is not an escalation — it is the only path to compelling Russia to engage constructively in international peace efforts. In this regard, we express profound gratitude to all partners and allies. This support is an investment in the rules-based international order and global peace.
3- Third, the Kremlin regime will not stop unless it is stopped through unyielding and concerted pressure. There is only one realistic path to ending this war: Russia must be compelled to retreat — economically, politically, and militarily.
Comments
There was, however, a discussion at a meeting chaired by Mr Johnson on 12 March 2020 about whether it was possible to shield older people and the vulnerable while allowing the virus to spread among the rest of the population. At this meeting, Sir Mark Sedwill (later Lord Sedwill), Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service from October 2018 to September 2020, suggested that members of the public could be told it was better for them to catch the virus and get it over with, using an analogy of ‘chickenpox parties’ to spread the virus.111 Lord Sedwill told the Inquiry that he was seeking to explore whether there was a way of managing it spreading through those people:
“for whom the disease was likely to be unpleasant rather than dangerous, and that we could quarantine and shield those for whom it would be dangerous”.112
Mr Johnson confirmed that this formed part of:
“a free-flowing discussion … to assess whether it might be sensible to allow the vast majority of younger people to get the disease (and therefore become immune) while protecting the elderly”.113
But Mr Johnson said that the idea was “immediately dispensed with”.114 Lord Sedwill explained that he dropped the ‘chickenpox parties’ analogy because he realised that it was causing confusion as to whether he had misunderstood the seriousness of Covid-19.115 In any event, it ultimately became clear that the capabilities were not in place to make this approach a viable option in March 2020.116
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpq1q49r08go
...Lockdown could have been avoided completely
The report says lockdown could have been avoided if steps such as social distancing and isolating those with symptoms along with members of their household had been introduced earlier than mid-March 2020.
But by the time ministers took action it was already too late and a lockdown was inevitable, it says...
Just asking.
Now, I must off to work out why the audio on my Disney+ feed to my old telly (that I've returned to after the newer telly went phut) keeps going out of sync.
I was exhausted when I got home yesterday after an eleven hour and eleven minute shift; I just ate and went to bed. Today was a bit easier (only ten hours and ten minutes - I enjoyed the neatness of the times!), and I don't feel anywhere near so tired
I've had such long days because it's been busy, I've been slower than I was, and I've had so many people asking me where I've been, or if they knew, how I am
The care and concern from so many people has been really rather touching, and has definitely helped me deal with what would otherwise have been quite a miserable couple of days back to work
I think that I must have actually been missed
Not the beginning of the end, but maybe just the end of the beginning.
Winter is coming...
Solomon even more so
- all the problems about medical supplies have been sorted out. By going back to buying perishable, disposable PPE from China. With no stockpile.
- The plan for the next pandemic is COVID. Just as the plan for COVID was bird flu.
- No domestic vaccine production
- If the next one is really airborne then the stuff the medics were wearing won’t help.
The resistance to considering modern technology applied to reusable equipment is interesting. All the objections have been answered by PPE used in other contexts - fit, cleaning, durability. Even hearing and facial display. Yet “We don’t do it like that”.
A low cost design effort could come up with a system that could be configured from a simple mask to a full movie style spacesuit. A kit of parts that you put together as required.
Who knew? Not me
He has convinced himself he is innocent of any Epstein wrongdoing, but he wants the guilty (all Dems) punished.
He has also demanded that Dem politicians questioning the legitimacy of a Trump order to law enforcement or the military are guilty of capital treason.
Stephen Miller is pure evil and is pulling Trump's strings.
Is this an NHS MRSA type thing? Or is it thought more expensive to clean than to buy more plastic?
Given we don't throw hospital beds away after every patient I don't see the huge risk.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2n215nqvyo
"Eurotunnel, the operator of the Channel Tunnel, has halted its UK projects, claiming "unsustainable" levels of taxation has made any future investments "non-viable".
The company said it had been informed its business rates would increase by some 200% from next year.
It hit out at the government, arguing that the higher costs were "clearly contrary" to ambitions of growing the economy and increasing investment."
https://x.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1991556914598039963
A declaration given under oath, subject to penalty of perjury.
Normally, the incumbent Vice President, if they decide to run, will be their party's nominee. They may or may not win the subsequent election but they would be the candidate.
Apart from the unusual case of 1976, I cannot think of an incumbent Vice President who lost his party's primary - some chose not to contest the election but I can't think of one who did wasn't the party nominee.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VklHMW2iUzA
Just those good ole boys, never meaning no harm...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/news/how-rachel-reeves-come-after-your-family-home/
This will upset them - at a time when we are negotiating with them on multiple fronts.
President Donald Trump and the Defense Department illegally deployed the National Guard in Washington, DC, a federal judge has ruled.
https://bsky.app/profile/cnn.com/post/3m63mhlglub2m
Making everything throw away and come in a sealed plastic packet solved that.
So it’s seen as modern.
Where I diverge from that thought is SARS pandemic planning which apparently had been comprehensively wargamed by the New Labour regime was jettisoned sometime in the late 2010s.
Lockdowns in 2020 were late by about a week on each occasion (I can understand why).
Johnson missing COBRA meetings was a dereliction of duty, although one could argue the jeopardy might have been taken more seriously in his absence.
Border Patrol's immigration enforcement operation in Charlotte, North Carolina, is over, local officials say
https://bsky.app/profile/cnn.com/post/3m63f763rbx2f
@mjsdc.bsky.social
Judge Ellis derides Greg Bovino as a serial fabulist who brazenly lied on the stand and seemingly considered it funny to perjure himself.
https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.bsky.social/post/3m63ljxccgk2p
JUST IN: Judge Sara Ellis (Obama/ILND) issues 233(!)-page opinion backing the now-stayed preliminary injunction she issued limiting federal tactics in response to anti-ICE protests in Illinois.
https://bsky.app/profile/joshgerstein.bsky.social/post/3m63kxsk25c2u
The courts are rejecting everything.
The press are starting to push back (at last)
It's not over, but the cracks are showing
Musk reprogrammed it to claim that he is the greatest, in all things, ever.
Now people are asking it things like who is the best cocksucker, and Elon gets the nod
I am excitedly awaiting his new persona. Perhaps he has arrived already. He often starts his new identity with a whimper and bows out with a bang.
https://x.com/rupahuq/status/1991464762451128813
In Jenrick's broken Britain (he had nothing to do with breaking Britain by the way) the graffiti is in Urdu.
Wherever the reality lies on the "totally natural" to "totally engineered" spectrum, the key thing is that the Chinese government could (and should) have been much more open about what was happening, much sooner. Given how quickly the boffins came up with multiple viable vaccines, even a month or so more notice would have had a massive effect on the global outcomes.
Saving face is not cost-free.
(And huzzah for boffins.)
Drastic measures might not have been needed if ‘stringent restrictions’ had been put in place before March 16 2020"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/20/lockdowns-could-have-been-avoided-entirely-covid-inquiry
Take The Rudest Man In Britain. He started being rude about an Archdeacon, which is a pretty safe target; besides - the relevant Archdeacon was a Radio 4 regular who could fight back. He's ended up being rude about any poor bugger whose job involves wearing a lanyard.
Never Johnsonians like myself and @kinabalu are giving the big fella credit where it is due, whilst Johnsonians 'til I die Brexiteers are grumbling that he had no business locking us down.
It's a funny old game Saint.
@freddiesayers
What a disaster that, flying in the face of the data we now have from Sweden and other states that opted for *less* stringent lockdowns rather than *harder, faster*, the British state should reach this moronic conclusion.
This is collective face-saving and motivated reasoning. The failure and panic that led to the lockdowns went so wide, and so deep, and involved so much of the political class, that to own up to it now would simply be too grave an admission. So instead we get this.
https://x.com/freddiesayers/status/1991539939423498587
In any case, there is a normal level of fluctuation of mood, feelings, etc. It's only cos the cyclistr was so obsessive with fitbits and all that he even noticed.
Edit: rather impressive really.
Repeated breaking of house rules iirc.
If you have an R (thanks to restrictions) of 1.1, then that's a very different scenario to one where R is 3. Not only that, but as increasing numbers of people gain some natural immunity, then the R starts to fall. So, modest restrictions that get R down to around 1.1 may be all you need.
And - of course - the weather, and people's own natural risk appetite at any moment in time influence R as well. When prevalance is low, we're all relaxed, and R might well be 2 or 3. When prevalance is high, we're much less likely to go out and R will fall accordingly.
Oops.
You have to sign up to read it, but it's Robbie Robertson's take.
One of my strongest trivial (as opposed to serious) memories of the pandemic were those freedom fighters reacting to having to mask up at Tesco as if it were one day in the life of Ivan Denisovich.
As long as humanity is pumping CO₂ into the atmosphere faster than the ecosystem can assimilate it, we have a problem. But there is a massive difference between doing so at a growing rate (where we were a few years ago), at a roughly stable rate (where we roughly are) and at a declining rate (where we should be soon). Going from "terrible" to "bad" is still progress.
(See also comparison of 2019-24 governments with the present government, unless it really triggers you.)
And to think these f****** might be in Government in four years time.
And more informational stuff certainly was mediated, to put it too politely - got derailed in scotch eggs etc.
There's perhaps a case for the TV and media equivalent of the compulsory mobile phone warning system. Just a thought.
And the kicker? Infection by classic COVID didn't provide complete immunity to variants. If anyone writes the dystopian alt-history of "Operation Wash Over", the final scene will be news of a variant...
Frigging ridiculous.
It is only mentioned once in the report today and is a line saying "modelling has established" this figure. Since there is not a single reference in the document to where one can see the evidence that produced this figure I'm already sceptical. Presumably the only way to find how the Judge came to this conclusion is to plough through the millions of pages of witness statements and so on??
Several things can be true at the same time:
1. Witkoff and Dmitriev cooked up a Kremlin wish-list to show the Ukrainians, and Dmitriev got feisty and leaked it prematurely to make it manifest, sensing Zelensky was too weak to say "no."
2. Trump told Witkoff, "Great job, Steve, keep it up, I'm with you all the way," without knowing the full details or anticipating what a shit show would ensue or appreciating just how unworkable this thing is. (He may have even been encouraged by Kushner in this respect; Jared believing he's Kissinger after Gaza.)
3. There is now a mad dash to accelerate a "framework" or "draft" or "living document" or "blueprint" written in invisible ink into a codified peace plan before Santa comes down the chimney because everyone with two IQ points in the administration and on the Hill is trying to find out just what the fuck is going on and how to stop it.
4. The Europeans are getting ready to visit "Daddy" again to talk some sense into him.
5. Official Moscow is hanging fire, waiting to see what happens now that Kirill has tossed a grenade into the works.
6. Rubio is hanging fire, waiting to see what happens now that Dim Philby has stepped on his own crank again.
7. This all ends in tears.
8. We'll do it all over again in three months.
https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1991626670944477439?s=20
Only 10% of us had antibodies, and when the results came back some (like me) were surprised to be negative and others surprised to be positive. For herd immunity the immunity rate would have to be close to 80%. So despite heavy exposure occupationally, with many ethnic staff and Leicester being a particular hotspot (we never fully unlocked that summer, unlike the rest of the UK) we were only a tiny way towards herd immunity.
"letting it rip" would have been carnage. I lost a dear friend in that wave.
In the interests of balance, if Johnson is to be criticised for any COVID shortcomings, surely the BBC has to apply the same criticisms to Starmer too.
Personally, I think Southern California got it right. Restrictions, rather than lockdown, so no one was ever denied socialisation.
And restrictions where severity increased or decreased according to hospital ICU usage.
It was broadly transparent, and it kept most things open most of the time. And even when restrictions were most stringent, you were never denied the ability to go for a walk with a friend.
@KaterynaLis
‼️⚡️You were searching for some answers? - here you have it. From the US security council just now:
Ukraine has officially received from the American side a draft plan. We outline the fundamental principles that matter to our people. We agree to work on the plan's provisions in a way that would bring about a just end to the war.
In this context, allow me to make several critical points.
1-First, while Ukraine stands ready to engage in meaningful negotiations to end this war — including at the leaders’ level — our red lines are clear and unwavering. There will never be any recognition, formal or otherwise, of Ukrainian territory temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation as Russian. Our land is not for sale.
Ukraine will not accept any limits on its right to self-defense or on the size and capabilities of our Armed Forces. Nor will we tolerate any infringement on our sovereignty, including our sovereign right to choose the alliances we want to join. Any genuine peace process must respect a fundamental principle: nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, and nothing about Europe without Europe.
And let me be equally clear: we will not reward the genocidal intent that underpins Russian aggression by undermining our identity, including our language.
2- Second, support for Ukraine is indispensable. Peace requires strengthened security and sustained financial assistance to Ukraine. Reinforcing Ukraine's defense capabilities is not an escalation — it is the only path to compelling Russia to engage constructively in international peace efforts. In this regard, we express profound gratitude to all partners and allies. This support is an investment in the rules-based international order and global peace.
3- Third, the Kremlin regime will not stop unless it is stopped through unyielding and concerted pressure. There is only one realistic path to ending this war: Russia must be compelled to retreat — economically, politically, and militarily.
https://x.com/KaterynaLis/status/1991630012601295046?s=20