Just f##k off with the "its ageist" bollocks. I don't care how many miles you ride on your bike a day, if you are over 70 and you get this, you are a pretty damn high chance of being in a lot of trouble. Its not ageist, its just fact.
And now an "independent" SAGE...what a stupid idea. They won't see the data, so how can they act as a peer review process. It screams of just playing politics.
Why do people think over 70s are locked away? You are not automatically on the shielding list if you are over 70.
Hang on. That article says 1.8m people. All over 70s plus everyone else with a listed medical condition. Surely there are many, many more than 1.8 m 70 + alone?
Sounds like rubbish.
1.8m are severely vulnerable (due to conditions) and have had a letter.
Over 70s have been told to shield at home in complete lockdown, but iirc they have not had a special letter and are not classed as "severely vulnerable" (other than the ones who do have a condition, if you see what I mean).
One thing painfully laid bare is the feeble nature of journalism. Across all platforms and from all political persuasions. Basic fact checking absent and outright falsehoods abound
The Sunday Times has cocked up its reporting of the degrees of severity and the numbers. Those throwing hand grenades at the media for being crap and lazy are dead right on lack of attention to the detail, without needing to get into the out and out fictions a lot of them are writing. Those making too broad comparisons with Trump supporters need to smell some coffee.
The 1.8m is very vulnerables; I think the term is "shielded", which is things like organ transplants, and patients who have had their immune systems weakened or destroyed for the treatment to proceed, or as part of the continuing management. I think even this contains several categories.
There are categories of "please stay at home" beyond that, who have been advised to socially isolate for 12 weeks (starting in mid-March). I am technically one of those, having Type I Diabetes, but I would need another conditions (eg severe active asthma) to be classed as "vulnerable".
So I have no offers of govt help or special access to supermarket slots, which I am not pursuing though I may be able to force it, as I have other arrangements in place, and the website would not let me register as such unless I lied.
I had a 'get in touch if you need help as we have identified you as potentially vulnerable' note from the Local Authority in mid-late April, so someone has been transferring data around, or they are cross-referencing creatively from their list of users of the clinical waste service, which is the only place they have my Type I Diabetes listed.
There has always been confusion about "listed conditions" from teh start eg diabetes is listed in the legislation, but not on the Govt "vulnerable registration" website.
I think normal healthy over-70s (would that be Mike as I think he has no conditions and normally perambulates Luton on his Ordinary?) are in an analgous category to me, but for old age extra vulnerabiility rather than Type I D.
Some have been luckier with our government on this than others. Today, splenectomies and hypertension disappeared, without cause, from the NHS website as being at high risk. This appears to be a political decision as the government site had never acceded to their inclusion. When we see other countries across the world (I was just reading the German advice, the Irish advice, Canadian, ECDC etc,), this flies in the face of the view elsewhere.
I don’t expect supermarket slots or whatever but it does disgust me that they have been pushed into this (there’s now an apologetic ‘our list isn’t complete’ in its place) and that millions of people are not being made aware that they should be avoiding extra risks.
As a broad centre social democrat person I fully support the Boris approach and think that it is reasonable for the lockdown to continue broadly as current until end May.
But I think that Boris needs to set a clear timetable for a way out with steps and timescales a. to give people hope and b. save the economy.
The only solution remains herd immunity. Sweden are doing the right thing IMO.
Correct - We may not be too far away from getting it here though - many people have had this in the UK - we may as well ease the lockdown now as the NHS has capacity
This has been discussed earlier. The dash in the table does not signify zero, it means that the number of positives is as yet unknown. There is a similar dash for the number of people tested.
Sorry, missed the earlier discussion. The dash for the number of people tested is explained on the website thus:
"For serology testing (Pillar 4), some protocols allow for samples to be tested repeatedly. Samples are anonymised prior to sending to the lab for testing, therefore the identification of individuals tested is not possible in the current reporting process, and so the number of people tested is not reported."
But no explanation as to why the number of positives is a dash (I accept it is probably not because it is zero). This is a key pieice of information so it's intriguing that HMG is not publishing it.
I thought it was fairly clear from the note, actually. This is the Porton Down stuff. In all the other pillars, the procedure is basically
sample gets taken > sample is sent through diagnostic testing process ASAP > testing process gives a positive or negative result > the positive or negative result gets reported back to the medical system
Pillar 4 is very different indeed and doesn't make a lot of sense to include in the same reporting figures, really. I think the best way to read the figures that are given is more like "samples taken" than "tests performed", because - as the note makes clear - some of these samples are going to be put through several different tests. Part of the point of pillar 4 is seeing how well the tests work and how they compare to each other! Therefore it doesn't make sense to tot up the "positives". Particularly if (I suspect this is the case but am not certain) some of these samples were taken precisely because it was known that the patient had a COVID infection and they need a gold standard "this sample comes from a person known to have had an infection at the time of taking it / recovered from having one 2 weeks before" or whatever, to see how well alternative tests pick that up (and potentially whether e.g. immunity wanes though it might be a bit soon for that).
I'm not an expert on immunology or virology but based on other studies I have read about, it wouldn't surprise me (@TimT will know more about this) if some of these samples are still being put through novel testing or investigative processes in 50 years' time. Sounds extreme, but eg people studying pathogen mutation sometimes withdraw material that has been kept in very long-term storage for that kind of time in order to do genetic sequencing that simply wasn't possible at the time it was taken; similarly it's possible that future scientists will have fancy newfangled things they want to do the current samples.
He’s getting what Ed Miliband got when he started out, but Labour are doing worse in the polls now than they did then. Miliband’s rating went negative really quickly though, I don’t suppose there’s any particular reason why Starmer’s should do the same.
On Opinium, at least, Labour has had a bigger bounce since Starmer took over than when EdM did. But it’s from a lower base and the Tory lead is a lot bigger. It’s a very high mountain to climb.
Clearly the Conservative lead is boosted by Johnson's popularity, the abnormal situation of a national crisis, and the wider negative perception of Labour as a party (if not its leader).
However, Starmer is net +18 when Labour is net -18, so outperforming his party's ratings by 36. That must be close to a record difference.
The positive for Labour is that when things start to turn sour for the Conservatives, as they will at some point, Labour has a leader who will no longer be likely to be dragging the party down in the manner of past leaders. 2024 will probably be the first general election which Labour has fought for 23 years in which its leader will be an asset rather than a liability to the party. (Although 2005 was all about promoting a popular Brown as the heir to the unpopular Blair.)
My understanding is that Pillar 4 is ultimately intended to include:
We will also roll out a national mass population sample over the coming months. Participants will be invited to take part in a study involving at-home immunity testing every 4 weeks over a 6 to 12-month period. The aim is to enrol 16,000 to 20,000 people who will undergo repeat testing. This will add to the population data, as well as telling us about immunity and how long it lasts.
Results from that kind of mass sample will be really interesting. But if they're presently focusing on the "help develop new tests and treatments" part of Pillar 4, it might not be.
ODNI, 16 AF, INSCOM, CIA, CGI, DIA, OICI, I&A, INR, TFI, DEA/ONSI, IB, MCIA, NGA, NRO, NSA/CSS, ONI
There's the making of a good quiz question there - just how many of those acronyms can you expand?? And secondly, how many of these intelligence agencies have you even heard of?
Even if you're good with this stuff, MCIA is a bit of a "false friend", you can probably guess the first three letters but the fourth might catch you out!
(Must be a bugger to integrate intelligence across this many agencies. Wonder how many problems a politician can encounter in life to which the solution is "ah, we must found another intelligence agency to take care of this!")
I remember when the Times was the paper of record.
Hold on though. Has Hancock got it wrong? "Clinically vulnerable" does include all over 70s; beyond that the government guidelines have "clinically extremely vulnerable".
Clinically vulnerable people are those who are: 1. aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)
I remember when the Times was the paper of record.
Hold on though. Has Hancock got it wrong? "Clinically vulnerable" does include all over 70s; beyond that the government guidelines have "clinically extremely vulnerable".
Clinically vulnerable people are those who are: 1. aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)
I remember when the Times was the paper of record.
Hold on though. Has Hancock got it wrong? "Clinically vulnerable" does include all over 70s; beyond that the government guidelines have "clinically extremely vulnerable".
Clinically vulnerable people are those who are: 1. aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)
I remember when the Times was the paper of record.
Hold on though. Has Hancock got it wrong? "Clinically vulnerable" does include all over 70s; beyond that the government guidelines have "clinically extremely vulnerable".
Clinically vulnerable people are those who are: 1. aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)
It could be that the most important factor is not age, but whether someone has at least one serious health condition. It happens to be the case that most people over 70 do indeed have at least one serious health condition. But it's easier for the government to use age as the main factor from a "messaging" point of view. The problem is that the minority of people over 70 without a serious health condition may be having their health damaged by not being able to do/take part in their normal exercise and social activities.
It could be that the most important factor is not age, but whether someone has at least one serious health condition. It happens to be the case that most people over 70 do indeed have at least one serious health condition. But it's easier for the government to use age as the main factor from a "messaging" point of view.
It could be that the most important factor is not age, but whether someone has at least one serious health condition. It happens to be the case that most people over 70 do indeed have at least one serious health condition. But it's easier for the government to use age as the main factor from a "messaging" point of view.
Given the very high mortality rate at 70+ you have to wonder why they are so keen to get out.
I remember when the Times was the paper of record.
Hold on though. Has Hancock got it wrong? "Clinically vulnerable" does include all over 70s; beyond that the government guidelines have "clinically extremely vulnerable".
Clinically vulnerable people are those who are: 1. aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)
Agreed but Hancock in the quoted tweet says "clinically vulnerable" and not "clinically extremely vulnerable".
The times appear to have mixed up the advice for these two groups. There is no 12 week ban for those not in the extremely vulnerable group.
That may be true (paywall!) but Hancock adds to the confusion by mixing up the names of the two groups. I think we can say government messaging is confusing.
I remember when the Times was the paper of record.
Hold on though. Has Hancock got it wrong? "Clinically vulnerable" does include all over 70s; beyond that the government guidelines have "clinically extremely vulnerable".
Clinically vulnerable people are those who are: 1. aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)
Agreed but Hancock in the quoted tweet says "clinically vulnerable" and not "clinically extremely vulnerable".
The times appear to have mixed up the advice for these two groups. There is no 12 week ban for those not in the extremely vulnerable group.
That may be true (paywall!) but Hancock adds to the confusion by mixing up the names of the two groups. I think we can say government messaging is confusing.
If you are over 70 you are advised to minimse contact with others. If you in the extremely vulnerable group you are told to stay inside for twelve weeks, and were told to in the form of a letter. If you didn't receive that letter, like the vast majority of over 70s, those rules do not apply to you. The Times are the ones muddying the waters here, as their headline will be read by hundreds or thousands of times more people than Hancock's tweet.
I remember when the Times was the paper of record.
Hold on though. Has Hancock got it wrong? "Clinically vulnerable" does include all over 70s; beyond that the government guidelines have "clinically extremely vulnerable".
Clinically vulnerable people are those who are: 1. aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)
Agreed but Hancock in the quoted tweet says "clinically vulnerable" and not "clinically extremely vulnerable".
The times appear to have mixed up the advice for these two groups. There is no 12 week ban for those not in the extremely vulnerable group.
That may be true (paywall!) but Hancock adds to the confusion by mixing up the names of the two groups. I think we can say government messaging is confusing.
If you are over 70 you are advised to minimse contact with others. If you in the extremely vulnerable group you are told to stay inside for twelve weeks, and were told to in the form of a letter. If you didn't receive that letter, like the vast majority of over 70s, those rules do not apply to you. The Times are the ones muddying the waters here, as their headline will be read by hundreds or thousands of times more people than Hancock's tweet.
Yes but Hancock's tweet complains the ST gets it wrong but uses the wrong term itself. Hancock says "clinically vulnerable" which does include the over-70s. That is all I was saying.
But beyond that is the question of 12 weeks because it may have been 12 weeks when first issued but:
The Government is currently advising people to shield until the end of June
However, there is no "blanket ban", and the suggestion that the clinically vulnerable "include 'people aged 70 or older regardless of medical conditions'" is wrong & deeply misleading.
As an anecdotal aside, a friend is in the clinically extremely vulnerable group so has to follow the shielding advice except for once a week when he needs to leave his home and make his own way to the hospital for chemotherapy!
I remember when the Times was the paper of record.
Hold on though. Has Hancock got it wrong? "Clinically vulnerable" does include all over 70s; beyond that the government guidelines have "clinically extremely vulnerable".
Clinically vulnerable people are those who are: 1. aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)
Agreed but Hancock in the quoted tweet says "clinically vulnerable" and not "clinically extremely vulnerable".
The times appear to have mixed up the advice for these two groups. There is no 12 week ban for those not in the extremely vulnerable group.
That may be true (paywall!) but Hancock adds to the confusion by mixing up the names of the two groups. I think we can say government messaging is confusing.
If you are over 70 you are advised to minimse contact with others. If you in the extremely vulnerable group you are told to stay inside for twelve weeks, and were told to in the form of a letter. If you didn't receive that letter, like the vast majority of over 70s, those rules do not apply to you. The Times are the ones muddying the waters here, as their headline will be read by hundreds or thousands of times more people than Hancock's tweet.
Yes but Hancock's tweet complains the ST gets it wrong but uses the wrong term itself. Hancock says "clinically vulnerable" which does include the over-70s. That is all I was saying.
ETA Hancock says: However, there is no "blanket ban", and the suggestion that the clinically vulnerable "include 'people aged 70 or older regardless of medical conditions'" is wrong & deeply misleading.
The Times article is wrong. It's saying all over 70s have been asked to shelter for twelve weeks. That's not the case.
Edit: probably best to avoid using blockquotes to quote other sources. It really messes up the replies.
I remember when the Times was the paper of record.
Hold on though. Has Hancock got it wrong? "Clinically vulnerable" does include all over 70s; beyond that the government guidelines have "clinically extremely vulnerable".
Clinically vulnerable people are those who are: 1. aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)
Agreed but Hancock in the quoted tweet says "clinically vulnerable" and not "clinically extremely vulnerable".
The times appear to have mixed up the advice for these two groups. There is no 12 week ban for those not in the extremely vulnerable group.
That may be true (paywall!) but Hancock adds to the confusion by mixing up the names of the two groups. I think we can say government messaging is confusing.
If you are over 70 you are advised to minimse contact with others. If you in the extremely vulnerable group you are told to stay inside for twelve weeks, and were told to in the form of a letter. If you didn't receive that letter, like the vast majority of over 70s, those rules do not apply to you. The Times are the ones muddying the waters here, as their headline will be read by hundreds or thousands of times more people than Hancock's tweet.
Yes but Hancock's tweet complains the ST gets it wrong but uses the wrong term itself. Hancock says "clinically vulnerable" which does include the over-70s. That is all I was saying.
ETA Hancock says: However, there is no "blanket ban", and the suggestion that the clinically vulnerable "include 'people aged 70 or older regardless of medical conditions'" is wrong & deeply misleading.
The Times article is wrong. It's saying all over 70s have been asked to shelter for twelve weeks. That's not the case.
Edit: probably best to avoid using blockquotes to quote other sources. It really messes up the replies.
The Times may well be wrong. Ironically, Hancock's correction of the Times is itself wrong. Robert Jenrick, the SoS for HCLG, gets it right.
Conclusion: government messaging on Covid-19 could use some tidying up. Of course, it is difficult with several updates being issued each day but if leading newspapers and the Health Secretary are confused, then perhaps it is time to check things are as clear as they can be.
I get what you're saying. And kudos for seeking out the best sources for what interests you.
But here's my point in a nutshell -
"It must be true. It was in the paper."
"Never believe anything you read in the press."
Both the above sentiments are misguided and dangerous - ESPECIALLY the second one.
Sorry don't agree with your statement on the second one the MSM is so erroneous on the whole that not believing anything they say probably puts you ahead of the curve.
If you had said never believe anything in the MSM until you verify it from a reputable source I might agree that its better.
I don't read papers, I don't watch tv news. I believe myself highly informed. I have been in many situations where work colleagues have parroted out some tosh served up by the MSM and said actually that is totally wrong. Try checking out here and here for the actual story.
The MSM is frankly almost as bad as all those sites you decry like fox news and breitbart and novara media and skawkbox. Worse in many ways as they manage to hide their bias, and errors behind a veneer of reputability. One which thankfully they are rapidly losing
"It must be true. It was in the paper." "Never believe anything you read in the press."
Both are wrong. Apply critical thinking to all information presented to you. Does it pass a basic smell test? Are actual sources quoted? Does it violate the laws of physics?
'If you don't read the newspapers you're ill-informed; if you do read the newspapers you're mis-informed.' (Mark Twain)
As an anecdotal aside, a friend is in the clinically extremely vulnerable group so has to follow the shielding advice except for once a week when he needs to leave his home and make his own way to the hospital for chemotherapy!
interesting.I have a bone marrow biopsy in mid-May in the haematology dept of the local DH.. that’s the hollow knitting needle in the thigh.
Comments
I don’t expect supermarket slots or whatever but it does disgust me that they have been pushed into this (there’s now an apologetic ‘our list isn’t complete’ in its place) and that millions of people are not being made aware that they should be avoiding extra risks.
It doesn't cost to warn people.
sample gets taken > sample is sent through diagnostic testing process ASAP > testing process gives a positive or negative result > the positive or negative result gets reported back to the medical system
Pillar 4 is very different indeed and doesn't make a lot of sense to include in the same reporting figures, really. I think the best way to read the figures that are given is more like "samples taken" than "tests performed", because - as the note makes clear - some of these samples are going to be put through several different tests. Part of the point of pillar 4 is seeing how well the tests work and how they compare to each other! Therefore it doesn't make sense to tot up the "positives". Particularly if (I suspect this is the case but am not certain) some of these samples were taken precisely because it was known that the patient had a COVID infection and they need a gold standard "this sample comes from a person known to have had an infection at the time of taking it / recovered from having one 2 weeks before" or whatever, to see how well alternative tests pick that up (and potentially whether e.g. immunity wanes though it might be a bit soon for that).
I'm not an expert on immunology or virology but based on other studies I have read about, it wouldn't surprise me (@TimT will know more about this) if some of these samples are still being put through novel testing or investigative processes in 50 years' time. Sounds extreme, but eg people studying pathogen mutation sometimes withdraw material that has been kept in very long-term storage for that kind of time in order to do genetic sequencing that simply wasn't possible at the time it was taken; similarly it's possible that future scientists will have fancy newfangled things they want to do the current samples.
However, Starmer is net +18 when Labour is net -18, so outperforming his party's ratings by 36. That must be close to a record difference.
The positive for Labour is that when things start to turn sour for the Conservatives, as they will at some point, Labour has a leader who will no longer be likely to be dragging the party down in the manner of past leaders. 2024 will probably be the first general election which Labour has fought for 23 years in which its leader will be an asset rather than a liability to the party. (Although 2005 was all about promoting a popular Brown as the heir to the unpopular Blair.)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878121/coronavirus-covid-19-testing-strategy.pdf
My understanding is that Pillar 4 is ultimately intended to include:
We will also roll out a national mass population sample over the coming months. Participants will be invited to take part in a study involving at-home immunity testing every 4 weeks over a 6 to 12-month period. The aim is to enrol 16,000 to 20,000 people who will undergo repeat testing. This will add to the population data, as well as telling us about immunity and how long it lasts.
Results from that kind of mass sample will be really interesting. But if they're presently focusing on the "help develop new tests and treatments" part of Pillar 4, it might not be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community
ODNI, 16 AF, INSCOM, CIA, CGI, DIA, OICI, I&A, INR, TFI, DEA/ONSI, IB, MCIA, NGA, NRO, NSA/CSS, ONI
There's the making of a good quiz question there - just how many of those acronyms can you expand?? And secondly, how many of these intelligence agencies have you even heard of?
Even if you're good with this stuff, MCIA is a bit of a "false friend", you can probably guess the first three letters but the fourth might catch you out!
(Must be a bugger to integrate intelligence across this many agencies. Wonder how many problems a politician can encounter in life to which the solution is "ah, we must found another intelligence agency to take care of this!")
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/05/peter-hitchens-were-destroying-the-nations-wealth-and-the-health-of-millions.html
Prof Stephen Reicher says that social distancing is having an impact on the nation's mental and physical health"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/02/isolation-dangerous-smoking-15-cigarettes-day-lockdown-adviser/
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19
But beyond that is the question of 12 weeks because it may have been 12 weeks when first issued but:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19
(updated 17th April)
ETA Hancock says:
Edit: probably best to avoid using blockquotes to quote other sources. It really messes up the replies.
Conclusion: government messaging on Covid-19 could use some tidying up. Of course, it is difficult with several updates being issued each day but if leading newspapers and the Health Secretary are confused, then perhaps it is time to check things are as clear as they can be.
I was feeling a lot like DavidL and I hope very much he feels better now too, or will soon.
They have been operating throughout.