On topic - People go into these sort of inquiries either wanting to score points for their politics or prove their preexisting preconceptions. It's more useful to learn lessons where we can improve for the future.
One thing I've learnt this pandemic is the urgency to be able to domestically ramp up production of globally in demand items. Especially in this instance Testing and PPE, plus obviously ICU equipment got the early intention but I think in hindsight Testing and PPE was more critical.
Personally I've always been a big believer in Ricardian Economics and never cared where our goods are manufactured. A standby domestic ability to ramp up production is a critical lesson for next time.
Well... I did read it, and I thought it was great. Good work @Cyclefree.
Yeah, I read it and liked it too.
It will be many years I expect before we can properly evaluate the crisis and the way in which Government responded but we're entitled to take an early view if we wish, and C-free gives us a great template.
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
There is an issue with reporting political opponents to the police for advantage
Jenrick has made a decision a few weeks after he sat at the same table as one of the developers at a fundraising dinner. He claims that they brought it up and he said it would be inappropriate to discuss.
In generating the headline “police investigate” the political damage is done regardless of the truth of the matter.
There should be an alternative route to check if there is even a primary facia case before involving the police
Pillar3 (mass antibody testing) has appeared in the testing stats for the first time - 23k new tests there today. These are on top of regular surveillance antibody testing for the ONS etc (pillar 4).
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
Italy now reckons Covid19 was already in the country before Christmas. There were a lot of unexplained pneumonia cases in the north, and now they had a look at blood plasma (?) from Nov/Dec and Covid19 is present.
I agreed with the header up to and including point 7 but the rest consists of an actual analysis of the government response dressed up as questions and rather presumes "guilt". We do need a full public inquiry, probably a Royal Commission.
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
A story a couple of weeks back indicated that a guy brought it from Wuhan to West Yorkshire back in December and it then ran through his wife's choir in January. They meet to practice a couple of miles from here.
I seem to be the only person who isn't sure there will be an inquiry. Boris has nothing obvious to gain by holding one, and plenty to lose. And with a majority of 80, who can force him? Of course, after 2025 that may not hold, but by then the country may have moved on.
I'm also not sure that Labour has much to gain either, because they haven't taken a significantly different line on many things.
Boris might risk it of course if he is forced to and can chose the right chairman.
Also for the inquiry, have we too often let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and done nothing because we could not do everything? In buying PPE because we needed to equip the whole NHS from one supplier; in contact tracing we need an app because pencil and paper could only do three quarters of the job; in testing incomers from hot spots, we did not use temperature or questionnaires even as entry to a funnel because they'd give some false negatives. Masks are ubiquitous elsewhere but people can't be trusted to wear them like a transplant surgeon so let's not bother. And so on.
Then there is Professor Ferguson's code, which so many professionals have been sniffy about, although it is not clear its predictions have been greatly different from other models. Surely we need more robust and transparent models for the future. Once it was clear there was an issue with the good professor's program, why not chuck half a million quid at half a dozen software firms to have a go at cleaning it up?
The header touches on communication. There are perhaps two separate considerations. First, was it clear? As the header suggests, one problem was ministers up to and including the Prime Minister putting their own spin on it.
Secondly, was it even capable of being clear? The initial advice was quite simple: stay home unless A, B or C; keep 2m apart when you are out. What we have now is a bit of a mess. You can meet this many people from this many households in this place but not that one. As some noted, you can have sex in the gardern but not in the house. It is a mess. Thank Heaven the sainted Dominic Cummings has firmly established you can interpret the rules however you like because they do need interpreting. (And what was Cummings' role in Sage meetings?)
Why did we not commission more research into finding precisely how and where the virus spread, in practice as well as in theory? Indoors or out? In the air or on surfaces? Were some groups more likely to become infected, and if infected, to die, and why?
Oh, and schools. We cancelled exams but now want pupils to return to school during what would have been the exam season. Schools should reopen at different dates for different ages but only for certain age groups and most pupils are to stay at home, which makes you wonder what all the fuss is about.
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
Italy now reckons Covid19 was already in the country before Christmas. There were a lot of unexplained pneumonia cases in the north, and now they had a look at blood plasma (?) from Nov/Dec and Covid19 is present.
Russian forensics expert suffering from coronavirus falls to her death from a window: Fatality follows three similar window falls by Russian doctors linked to Covid-19
Coincidentally, just reading about the German Occupation of Serbia, and the local collaborationist leader, General Nedic, also "committed suicide" after the war - by falling out of a window in 1946. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Nedić
The other thing is, this is not then beginning of the end, it's not the end of the beginning, I'm not even sure we have lost the Battle of France yet. There will be lots more horrors to enquire about which so far haven't happened.
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
Makes one wonder how many lives could have been saved (not only in this country but around the world) if China hadn't been aggressively covering this up.
The other thing is, this is not then beginning of the end, it's not the end of the beginning, I'm not even sure we have lost the Battle of France yet. There will be lots more horrors to enquire about which so far haven't happened.
I think you can be a bit less pessimistic than that. We avoided the disaster scenario of the NHS being overloaded, akin to the Nazis invading. So we're past the Battle of Britain, but still have a long, painful, and expensive slog ahead until we reach Berlin.
Italy now reckons Covid19 was already in the country before Christmas. There were a lot of unexplained pneumonia cases in the north, and now they had a look at blood plasma (?) from Nov/Dec and Covid19 is present.
It seems plausible enough, but if so it clearly didn't spread given the lack of any spike in deaths:
This knee business reminds us that President Trump, and others, were quick to condemn peaceful protests by Black athletes "taking a knee" in 2016. What's left once peaceful means are ruled out? This is not to condone looting tellies for political reasons but perhaps one can understand the fear and frustration.
Italy now reckons Covid19 was already in the country before Christmas. There were a lot of unexplained pneumonia cases in the north, and now they had a look at blood plasma (?) from Nov/Dec and Covid19 is present.
It seems plausible enough, but if so it clearly didn't spread given the lack of any spike in deaths:
This is the difficult thing to square. This is highly infectious, especially indoors, it hit in the middle of winter in Europe when most people are spending the majority of their time inside. But if it did come before Christmas, it took 3+ months to really start to hit hard.
The tracking of the mutations of this virus don't suggest any major mutation has occurred, so what has been going on. Either it didn't come as early as that, instead there was some other nasty bug about, or shrugs shoulders....
On question 2, the concentration on influenza seems to have been, to a quite substantial extent, global blind spot, which given the SARS and MERS early warnings is something of a mystery.
Russian forensics expert suffering from coronavirus falls to her death from a window: Fatality follows three similar window falls by Russian doctors linked to Covid-19
Coincidentally, just reading about the German Occupation of Serbia, and the local collaborationist leader, General Nedic, also "committed suicide" after the war - by falling out of a window in 1946. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Nedić
I seem to be the only person who isn't sure there will be an inquiry. Boris has nothing obvious to gain by holding one, and plenty to lose. And with a majority of 80, who can force him? Of course, after 2025 that may not hold, but by then the country may have moved on.
I'm also not sure that Labour has much to gain either, because they haven't taken a significantly different line on many things.
Boris might risk it of course if he is forced to and can chose the right chairman.
Boris probably does not have much to lose. The big flaw was covering up rather than acting on Cygnus, and his hands are clean and his rival's (Hunt's) are not. Boris then became ill himself which gives him an alibi for a crucial period. And that is before we remember most inquiries are heavy on the whitewash.
Dominic Cummings might be a different kettle of fish. The inquiry might criticise him over Barnard Castle, or his unexplained involvement at SAGE, or it might exonerate him on the grounds he did not influence decisions. Is it better to be thought wrong or irrelevant, a fool or a knave?
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
Italy now reckons Covid19 was already in the country before Christmas. There were a lot of unexplained pneumonia cases in the north, and now they had a look at blood plasma (?) from Nov/Dec and Covid19 is present.
While there may well have been isolated cases in Dec/Jan, if it was extensive it could not have gone unnoticed.
The RCGP swabbing for flu survey included covid 19 fthrough most of February, but didn't find community acquired transmission of coronavirus until March 8th.
Italy now reckons Covid19 was already in the country before Christmas. There were a lot of unexplained pneumonia cases in the north, and now they had a look at blood plasma (?) from Nov/Dec and Covid19 is present.
It seems plausible enough, but if so it clearly didn't spread given the lack of any spike in deaths:
This is the difficult thing to square. This is highly infectious, especially indoors, it hit in the middle of winter in Europe when most people are spending the majority of their time inside. But if it did come before Christmas, it took 3+ months to really start to hit hard.
The tracking of the mutations of this virus don't suggest any major mutation has occurred, so what has been going on. Either it didn't come as early as that, instead there was some other nasty bug about, or shrugs shoulders....
It could be just the way exponential growth works in the early stages given the incubation period before someone becomes infectious.
Italy now reckons Covid19 was already in the country before Christmas. There were a lot of unexplained pneumonia cases in the north, and now they had a look at blood plasma (?) from Nov/Dec and Covid19 is present.
It seems plausible enough, but if so it clearly didn't spread given the lack of any spike in deaths:
This is the difficult thing to square. This is highly infectious, especially indoors, it hit in the middle of winter in Europe when most people are spending the majority of their time inside. But if it did come before Christmas, it took 3+ months to really start to hit hard.
The tracking of the mutations of this virus don't suggest any major mutation has occurred, so what has been going on. Either it didn't come as early as that, instead there was some other nasty bug about, or shrugs shoulders....
It could be just the way exponential growth works in the early stages given the incubation period before someone becomes infectious.
I don't think so, given the believed R rate and the fact that nobody would have been at all aware of this, so somebody going about their daily lives and especially those going into a hospital would be unknowingly infecting loads of people.
Unless there is something to this idea of a level of immunity among certain groups due to blood type or previous exposure to coronaviruses.
So many unknowns e.g. why the original UK super-spreader managed to stay with 12 people in confined space for a week and I believe only half got it (and I don't believe any seriously). Where as somebody goes to church for an hour and 40 people get it.
This knee business reminds us that President Trump, and others, were quick to condemn peaceful protests by Black athletes "taking a knee" in 2016. What's left once peaceful means are ruled out? This is not to condone looting tellies for political reasons but perhaps one can understand the fear and frustration.
Agreed completely. President Trump is a vile, race baiting, white supremacist scumbag.
White supremacist tries to drive over people? Trump says "there's good people on both sides"
Black man makes a peaceful protest? Trump loses his mind and tries to close it down.
If there's no avenue for peaceful protests then what do you expect to happen?
On topic: There seems to be a very strong assumption (not by Ms CycleFree, I hasten to add) that some future enquiry will find the government culpable of neglect at best and most probably deliberate disregard of the risk, especially in the early stages.
I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:
I seem to be the only person who isn't sure there will be an inquiry. Boris has nothing obvious to gain by holding one, and plenty to lose. And with a majority of 80, who can force him? Of course, after 2025 that may not hold, but by then the country may have moved on.
I'm also not sure that Labour has much to gain either, because they haven't taken a significantly different line on many things.
Boris might risk it of course if he is forced to and can chose the right chairman.
Boris probably does not have much to lose. The big flaw was covering up rather than acting on Cygnus, and his hands are clean and his rival's (Hunt's) are not. Boris then became ill himself which gives him an alibi for a crucial period. And that is before we remember most inquiries are heavy on the whitewash.
Dominic Cummings might be a different kettle of fish. The inquiry might criticise him over Barnard Castle, or his unexplained involvement at SAGE, or it might exonerate him on the grounds he did not influence decisions. Is it better to be thought wrong or irrelevant, a fool or a knave?
If it's true that SAGE were dragging their heals on lockdown and Cummings pushed for it then Cummings might come out of an inquiry well.
Italy now reckons Covid19 was already in the country before Christmas. There were a lot of unexplained pneumonia cases in the north, and now they had a look at blood plasma (?) from Nov/Dec and Covid19 is present.
It seems plausible enough, but if so it clearly didn't spread given the lack of any spike in deaths:
This is the difficult thing to square. This is highly infectious, especially indoors, it hit in the middle of winter in Europe when most people are spending the majority of their time inside. But if it did come before Christmas, it took 3+ months to really start to hit hard.
The tracking of the mutations of this virus don't suggest any major mutation has occurred, so what has been going on. Either it didn't come as early as that, instead there was some other nasty bug about, or shrugs shoulders....
It could be just the way exponential growth works in the early stages given the incubation period before someone becomes infectious.
No it doesn't make sense. There can't have been exponential growth since before Christmas or it would have been much bigger already by February.
On topic: There seems to be a very strong assumption (not by Ms CycleFree, I hasten to add) that some future enquiry will find the government culpable of neglect at best and most probably deliberate disregard of the risk, especially in the early stages.
I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:
Come on Richard, the half-baked initial lockdown. Too little too late. We were shouting at the TV every evening desperate for the government to act. They've cost tens of thousands of lives.
On topic: There seems to be a very strong assumption (not by Ms CycleFree, I hasten to add) that some future enquiry will find the government culpable of neglect at best and most probably deliberate disregard of the risk, especially in the early stages.
I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:
One big question I would like to know the answer to. What was the advice that led from contact tracing to the policy of only testing hospital admissions.
We know the contract tracing couldn't keep up, and I believe this shift was down to a belief that home antibody tests would be available very quickly and that PHE could increase antigen testing somewhat.
Ultimately, Hancock made those calls, but I would like to know what exactly was said. It was a fundamental mistake, but we don't know based on what evidence or advice.
There was a wasted month here, where as Hancock did show that when he really demanded action, the public / private partnership has delivered (even if the 100k daily tests is a bit iffy and in a proportion of the tests it takes too long to get results).
Italy now reckons Covid19 was already in the country before Christmas. There were a lot of unexplained pneumonia cases in the north, and now they had a look at blood plasma (?) from Nov/Dec and Covid19 is present.
It seems plausible enough, but if so it clearly didn't spread given the lack of any spike in deaths:
This is the difficult thing to square. This is highly infectious, especially indoors, it hit in the middle of winter in Europe when most people are spending the majority of their time inside. But if it did come before Christmas, it took 3+ months to really start to hit hard.
The tracking of the mutations of this virus don't suggest any major mutation has occurred, so what has been going on. Either it didn't come as early as that, instead there was some other nasty bug about, or shrugs shoulders....
It could be just the way exponential growth works in the early stages given the incubation period before someone becomes infectious.
I don't think so, given the believed R rate and the fact that nobody would have been at all aware of this, so somebody going about their daily lives and especially those going into a hospital would be unknowingly infecting loads of people.
Unless there is something to this idea of a level of immunity among certain groups due to blood type or previous exposure to coronaviruses.
So many unknowns e.g. why the original UK super-spreader managed to stay with 12 people in confined space for a week and I believe only half got it (and I don't believe any seriously). Where as somebody goes to church for an hour and 40 people get it.
If they think the average unmitigated R value is around 4, it still takes a while to get from a very small number to a significant number.
On topic: There seems to be a very strong assumption (not by Ms CycleFree, I hasten to add) that some future enquiry will find the government culpable of neglect at best and most probably deliberate disregard of the risk, especially in the early stages.
I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:
Come on Richard, the half-baked initial lockdown. Too little too late. We were shouting at the TV every evening desperate for the government to act. They've cost tens of thousands of lives.
Read Lawrence Freedman's article.
What some future enquiry might find is that the scientific advice was wrong. Maybe it was. But any old fool can be right in hindsight, and an enquiry - unless it's either just a straight witch-hunt or a Hutton-style whitewash - will focus on advice given and decisions made given the information and uncertainty at the time.
In that process - I hate to break the bad news - some guy on the internet who says he was shouting at the TV is unlikely to be given much weight.
Italy now reckons Covid19 was already in the country before Christmas. There were a lot of unexplained pneumonia cases in the north, and now they had a look at blood plasma (?) from Nov/Dec and Covid19 is present.
It seems plausible enough, but if so it clearly didn't spread given the lack of any spike in deaths:
This is the difficult thing to square. This is highly infectious, especially indoors, it hit in the middle of winter in Europe when most people are spending the majority of their time inside. But if it did come before Christmas, it took 3+ months to really start to hit hard.
The tracking of the mutations of this virus don't suggest any major mutation has occurred, so what has been going on. Either it didn't come as early as that, instead there was some other nasty bug about, or shrugs shoulders....
It could be just the way exponential growth works in the early stages given the incubation period before someone becomes infectious.
I don't think so, given the believed R rate and the fact that nobody would have been at all aware of this, so somebody going about their daily lives and especially those going into a hospital would be unknowingly infecting loads of people.
Unless there is something to this idea of a level of immunity among certain groups due to blood type or previous exposure to coronaviruses.
So many unknowns e.g. why the original UK super-spreader managed to stay with 12 people in confined space for a week and I believe only half got it (and I don't believe any seriously). Where as somebody goes to church for an hour and 40 people get it.
If they think the average unmitigated R value is around 4, it still takes a while to get from a very small number to a significant number.
Not that long at all with exponential growth.
Plus given what we know now about what makes the virus spread more - eg being indoors, singing etc that is prime for December. Festive season should be a prime period for spreading the virus yet there's no real evidence of it spreading before February at the earliest.
On topic: There seems to be a very strong assumption (not by Ms CycleFree, I hasten to add) that some future enquiry will find the government culpable of neglect at best and most probably deliberate disregard of the risk, especially in the early stages.
I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:
One big question I would like to know the answer to. What was the advice that led from contact tracing to the policy of only testing hospital admissions.
We know the contract tracing couldn't keep up, and I believe this shift was down to a belief that home antibody tests would be available very quickly and that PHE could increase antigen testing somewhat.
Ultimately, Hancock made those calls, but I would like to know what exactly was said. It was a fundamental mistake, but we don't know based on what evidence or advice.
There was a wasted month here, where as Hancock did show that when he really demanded action, the public / private partnership has delivered (even if the 100k daily tests is a bit iffy and in a proportion of the tests it takes too long to get results).
Yes, that's certainly a topic which needs to be investigated, but I suspect it's a rather complicated one. One thing I would say is that I'd be cautious assuming that the ramp-up of tests could have been done a lot quicker than it was.
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
Italy now reckons Covid19 was already in the country before Christmas. There were a lot of unexplained pneumonia cases in the north, and now they had a look at blood plasma (?) from Nov/Dec and Covid19 is present.
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
An interesting tale. Slightly ironic that a member of The Gang of Four died after a trip to China.
Retrospective antibody analysis of retained samples would be interesting.
The other interesting work is the genetic history stuff from the University of Cambridge. You can see - from mutations - which strains evolved from which, and can therefore identify the oldest strains in existence.
The Wuhan strain is not the oldest, which is extremely curious. It suggests the virus was active in the rest of China, killing people at a fairly low rate, until it had a superspreader event in Wuhan and exploded.
Italy now reckons Covid19 was already in the country before Christmas. There were a lot of unexplained pneumonia cases in the north, and now they had a look at blood plasma (?) from Nov/Dec and Covid19 is present.
It seems plausible enough, but if so it clearly didn't spread given the lack of any spike in deaths:
This is the difficult thing to square. This is highly infectious, especially indoors, it hit in the middle of winter in Europe when most people are spending the majority of their time inside. But if it did come before Christmas, it took 3+ months to really start to hit hard.
The tracking of the mutations of this virus don't suggest any major mutation has occurred, so what has been going on. Either it didn't come as early as that, instead there was some other nasty bug about, or shrugs shoulders....
It could be just the way exponential growth works in the early stages given the incubation period before someone becomes infectious.
I don't think so, given the believed R rate and the fact that nobody would have been at all aware of this, so somebody going about their daily lives and especially those going into a hospital would be unknowingly infecting loads of people.
Unless there is something to this idea of a level of immunity among certain groups due to blood type or previous exposure to coronaviruses.
So many unknowns e.g. why the original UK super-spreader managed to stay with 12 people in confined space for a week and I believe only half got it (and I don't believe any seriously). Where as somebody goes to church for an hour and 40 people get it.
If they think the average unmitigated R value is around 4, it still takes a while to get from a very small number to a significant number.
Not that long at all with exponential growth.
Plus given what we know now about what makes the virus spread more - eg being indoors, singing etc that is prime for December. Festive season should be a prime period for spreading the virus yet there's no real evidence of it spreading before February at the earliest.
If you look at an exponential curve, the first part of it is relatively flat. December to February is only 4-5 weeks.
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
Italy now reckons Covid19 was already in the country before Christmas. There were a lot of unexplained pneumonia cases in the north, and now they had a look at blood plasma (?) from Nov/Dec and Covid19 is present.
I am sure that is what my wife had at christmas, all the symptoms then the massive inflammation , bilateral pneumonia and doctors did not know what caused it, still do not. Hopefully when she can get back to hospital for further treatment they will do antibody tests.
On topic: There seems to be a very strong assumption (not by Ms CycleFree, I hasten to add) that some future enquiry will find the government culpable of neglect at best and most probably deliberate disregard of the risk, especially in the early stages.
I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:
Come on Richard, the half-baked initial lockdown. Too little too late. We were shouting at the TV every evening desperate for the government to act. They've cost tens of thousands of lives.
What some future enquiry might find is that the scientific advice was wrong. Maybe it was. But any old fool can be right in hindsight, and an enquiry - unless it's either just a straight witch-hunt or a Hutton-style whitewash - will focus on advice given and decisions made given the information and uncertainty at the time.
That emphasis is true, but the politics and perceptions of it won't focus on it that way. It already isn't, and most people will already have decided what they think. The usefulness of an inquiry won't be based on what the public thinks of it; they already know what they think.
On topic: There seems to be a very strong assumption (not by Ms CycleFree, I hasten to add) that some future enquiry will find the government culpable of neglect at best and most probably deliberate disregard of the risk, especially in the early stages.
I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:
One big question I would like to know the answer to. What was the advice that led from contact tracing to the policy of only testing hospital admissions.
We know the contract tracing couldn't keep up, and I believe this shift was down to a belief that home antibody tests would be available very quickly and that PHE could increase antigen testing somewhat.
Ultimately, Hancock made those calls, but I would like to know what exactly was said. It was a fundamental mistake, but we don't know based on what evidence or advice.
There was a wasted month here, where as Hancock did show that when he really demanded action, the public / private partnership has delivered (even if the 100k daily tests is a bit iffy and in a proportion of the tests it takes too long to get results).
Yes, that's certainly a topic which needs to be investigated, but I suspect it's a rather complicated one. One thing I would say is that I'd be cautious assuming that the ramp-up of tests could have been done a lot quicker than it was.
The one thing that could have been done sooner is a public appeal to ramp up testing (and PPE) in the same way as there was an appeal for ventilators.
It Hancock had come out and said "demand for testing is greater than our capacity so we regrettably need to ration the capacity we have for tests that clinically require it the most within the NHS but we are appealing to any company, research body or university that can assist in ramping up testing to help" then there could have been a quicker ramp up I suspect.
On topic: There seems to be a very strong assumption (not by Ms CycleFree, I hasten to add) that some future enquiry will find the government culpable of neglect at best and most probably deliberate disregard of the risk, especially in the early stages.
I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:
Come on Richard, the half-baked initial lockdown. Too little too late. We were shouting at the TV every evening desperate for the government to act. They've cost tens of thousands of lives.
What some future enquiry might find is that the scientific advice was wrong. Maybe it was. But any old fool can be right in hindsight, and an enquiry - unless it's either just a straight witch-hunt or a Hutton-style whitewash - will focus on advice given and decisions made given the information and uncertainty at the time.
That emphasis is true, but the politics and perceptions of it won't focus on it that way. It already isn't, and most people will already have decided what they think. The usefulness of an inquiry won't be based on what the public thinks of it; they already know what they think.
Yes, quite right. The political narrative which will be all-important doesn't really depend on the reality.
On topic: There seems to be a very strong assumption (not by Ms CycleFree, I hasten to add) that some future enquiry will find the government culpable of neglect at best and most probably deliberate disregard of the risk, especially in the early stages.
I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:
One big question I would like to know the answer to. What was the advice that led from contact tracing to the policy of only testing hospital admissions.
We know the contract tracing couldn't keep up, and I believe this shift was down to a belief that home antibody tests would be available very quickly and that PHE could increase antigen testing somewhat.
Ultimately, Hancock made those calls, but I would like to know what exactly was said. It was a fundamental mistake, but we don't know based on what evidence or advice.
There was a wasted month here, where as Hancock did show that when he really demanded action, the public / private partnership has delivered (even if the 100k daily tests is a bit iffy and in a proportion of the tests it takes too long to get results).
Yes, that's certainly a topic which needs to be investigated, but I suspect it's a rather complicated one. One thing I would say is that I'd be cautious assuming that the ramp-up of tests could have been done a lot quicker than it was.
I don't think it is debatable it could have been. The PHE policy was to only use PHE labs and kit. We left all that uni lab kit sitting ideal, let alone the large pharma industry we have.
And setting up a drive-thru testing station is hardly rocket science. Find big car park, rope it off, test. I believe those conducting the tests at these sites just do a 2 day course to learn how to take the samples properly.
They might not have got to 100k, but that is always a bit of a secondary issue. What we needed was more capacity, processed quickly, sooner. I think it could have been achieved if PHE had been willing to use private firms and academia, as has been done in Germany.
Italy now reckons Covid19 was already in the country before Christmas. There were a lot of unexplained pneumonia cases in the north, and now they had a look at blood plasma (?) from Nov/Dec and Covid19 is present.
It seems plausible enough, but if so it clearly didn't spread given the lack of any spike in deaths:
This is the difficult thing to square. This is highly infectious, especially indoors, it hit in the middle of winter in Europe when most people are spending the majority of their time inside. But if it did come before Christmas, it took 3+ months to really start to hit hard.
The tracking of the mutations of this virus don't suggest any major mutation has occurred, so what has been going on. Either it didn't come as early as that, instead there was some other nasty bug about, or shrugs shoulders....
It could be just the way exponential growth works in the early stages given the incubation period before someone becomes infectious.
I don't think so, given the believed R rate and the fact that nobody would have been at all aware of this, so somebody going about their daily lives and especially those going into a hospital would be unknowingly infecting loads of people.
Unless there is something to this idea of a level of immunity among certain groups due to blood type or previous exposure to coronaviruses.
So many unknowns e.g. why the original UK super-spreader managed to stay with 12 people in confined space for a week and I believe only half got it (and I don't believe any seriously). Where as somebody goes to church for an hour and 40 people get it.
If they think the average unmitigated R value is around 4, it still takes a while to get from a very small number to a significant number.
Not that long at all with exponential growth.
Plus given what we know now about what makes the virus spread more - eg being indoors, singing etc that is prime for December. Festive season should be a prime period for spreading the virus yet there's no real evidence of it spreading before February at the earliest.
If you look at an exponential curve, the first part of it is relatively flat. December to February is only 4-5 weeks.
If you go at an exponential rate of doubling every three days* then from just a dozen cases before Christmas you'd be looking at hundreds of thousands already by early February. No evidence that occured.
* which is what the virus was doing even when we knew about it early on and were distancing already, it should have been more virulent not less before we knew about it.
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
An interesting tale. Slightly ironic that a member of The Gang of Four died after a trip to China.
Retrospective antibody analysis of retained samples would be interesting.
The other interesting work is the genetic history stuff from the University of Cambridge. You can see - from mutations - which strains evolved from which, and can therefore identify the oldest strains in existence.
The Wuhan strain is not the oldest, which is extremely curious. It suggests the virus was active in the rest of China, killing people at a fairly low rate, until it had a superspreader event in Wuhan and exploded.
Hang on - weren't we told by SeanT and DonaldT that it escaped from a Wuhan lab?
On topic: There seems to be a very strong assumption (not by Ms CycleFree, I hasten to add) that some future enquiry will find the government culpable of neglect at best and most probably deliberate disregard of the risk, especially in the early stages.
I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:
I don't know. But how many enquiries can we think of that changed minds? I remember the Hutton enquiry pretty comprehensively demolishing Gilligan's case against the government, but it didn't persuade people at all - those who disliked the conclusions - including lots who had admired the way Hutton went about it - simply said it was a whitewash. Similarly, did people find the Bloody Sunday inquiry persuasive if they disagreed with it?
The problem is that enquiries conclude so long after the event that minds have all been made up. If the outcome is unambiguous, they rejecvt it. If it's nuanced, they cherry-pick the bits they like.
This knee business reminds us that President Trump, and others, were quick to condemn peaceful protests by Black athletes "taking a knee" in 2016. What's left once peaceful means are ruled out? This is not to condone looting tellies for political reasons but perhaps one can understand the fear and frustration.
Also various pieties from Trumpy people about how Martin Luther King would never have indulged in or approved of rioting. Not sure if using him as an exemplar of what happens if you stick to dignified, non violent protest is a great encouragement to frustrated and angry African Americans.
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
An interesting tale. Slightly ironic that a member of The Gang of Four died after a trip to China.
Retrospective antibody analysis of retained samples would be interesting.
The other interesting work is the genetic history stuff from the University of Cambridge. You can see - from mutations - which strains evolved from which, and can therefore identify the oldest strains in existence.
The Wuhan strain is not the oldest, which is extremely curious. It suggests the virus was active in the rest of China, killing people at a fairly low rate, until it had a superspreader event in Wuhan and exploded.
Hang on - weren't we told by SeanT and DonaldT that it escaped from a Wuhan lab?
What we do know now is it didn't start at the wet market.
On topic - People go into these sort of inquiries either wanting to score points for their politics or prove their preexisting preconceptions. It's more useful to learn lessons where we can improve for the future.
One thing I've learnt this pandemic is the urgency to be able to domestically ramp up production of globally in demand items. Especially in this instance Testing and PPE, plus obviously ICU equipment got the early intention but I think in hindsight Testing and PPE was more critical.
Personally I've always been a big believer in Ricardian Economics and never cared where our goods are manufactured. A standby domestic ability to ramp up production is a critical lesson for next time.
Another reason for "these sort of enquiries" is to kick the can down the road.
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
An interesting tale. Slightly ironic that a member of The Gang of Four died after a trip to China.
Retrospective antibody analysis of retained samples would be interesting.
The other interesting work is the genetic history stuff from the University of Cambridge. You can see - from mutations - which strains evolved from which, and can therefore identify the oldest strains in existence.
The Wuhan strain is not the oldest, which is extremely curious. It suggests the virus was active in the rest of China, killing people at a fairly low rate, until it had a superspreader event in Wuhan and exploded.
Hang on - weren't we told by SeanT and DonaldT that it escaped from a Wuhan lab?
What we do know now is it didn't start at the wet market.
Well, not that wet market anyway. I suspect it could have started anywhere and just just happened to start somewhere.
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
An interesting tale. Slightly ironic that a member of The Gang of Four died after a trip to China.
Retrospective antibody analysis of retained samples would be interesting.
The other interesting work is the genetic history stuff from the University of Cambridge. You can see - from mutations - which strains evolved from which, and can therefore identify the oldest strains in existence.
The Wuhan strain is not the oldest, which is extremely curious. It suggests the virus was active in the rest of China, killing people at a fairly low rate, until it had a superspreader event in Wuhan and exploded.
Hang on - weren't we told by SeanT and DonaldT that it escaped from a Wuhan lab?
That was a lab to which people brought already-existing viruses to study and modify, so the escape theory actually requires that the Wuhan strain is not the oldest.
FFS will they never learn? Delaying only increases the speculation.
What happened to the Russia report btw?
It certainly does. Realistically what is it going to say, yes have more effected, combination of a range of factors, the extent of each impossible to determine at this time (because that is the truth., For starters, we don't even know how this virus fully effects everybody, let alone those with conditions more prevalent within different ethnic minorities, due to biological and social differences).
Italy now reckons Covid19 was already in the country before Christmas. There were a lot of unexplained pneumonia cases in the north, and now they had a look at blood plasma (?) from Nov/Dec and Covid19 is present.
It seems plausible enough, but if so it clearly didn't spread given the lack of any spike in deaths:
This is the difficult thing to square. This is highly infectious, especially indoors, it hit in the middle of winter in Europe when most people are spending the majority of their time inside. But if it did come before Christmas, it took 3+ months to really start to hit hard.
The tracking of the mutations of this virus don't suggest any major mutation has occurred, so what has been going on. Either it didn't come as early as that, instead there was some other nasty bug about, or shrugs shoulders....
It could be just the way exponential growth works in the early stages given the incubation period before someone becomes infectious.
I don't think so, given the believed R rate and the fact that nobody would have been at all aware of this, so somebody going about their daily lives and especially those going into a hospital would be unknowingly infecting loads of people.
Unless there is something to this idea of a level of immunity among certain groups due to blood type or previous exposure to coronaviruses.
So many unknowns e.g. why the original UK super-spreader managed to stay with 12 people in confined space for a week and I believe only half got it (and I don't believe any seriously). Where as somebody goes to church for an hour and 40 people get it.
If they think the average unmitigated R value is around 4, it still takes a while to get from a very small number to a significant number.
Not that long at all with exponential growth.
Plus given what we know now about what makes the virus spread more - eg being indoors, singing etc that is prime for December. Festive season should be a prime period for spreading the virus yet there's no real evidence of it spreading before February at the earliest.
If you look at an exponential curve, the first part of it is relatively flat. December to February is only 4-5 weeks.
If you go at an exponential rate of doubling every three days* then from just a dozen cases before Christmas you'd be looking at hundreds of thousands already by early February. No evidence that occured.
* which is what the virus was doing even when we knew about it early on and were distancing already, it should have been more virulent not less before we knew about it.
More and more bits of circumstantial evidence of peaking way earlier than you would expect are adding to the Oxford case of widespread infection or widespread resistance. Yet there seems little sign of any high level consideration.
On topic: There seems to be a very strong assumption (not by Ms CycleFree, I hasten to add) that some future enquiry will find the government culpable of neglect at best and most probably deliberate disregard of the risk, especially in the early stages.
I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:
I don't know. But how many enquiries can we think of that changed minds? I remember the Hutton enquiry pretty comprehensively demolishing Gilligan's case against the government, but it didn't persuade people at all - those who disliked the conclusions - including lots who had admired the way Hutton went about it - simply said it was a whitewash. Similarly, did people find the Bloody Sunday inquiry persuasive if they disagreed with it?
The problem is that enquiries conclude so long after the event that minds have all been made up. If the outcome is unambiguous, they rejecvt it. If it's nuanced, they cherry-pick the bits they like.
I have to say your memory of the Hutton report is the diametric opposite of mine. To me - and I think to most people, including the Blair government - the evidence which the enquiry uncovered and which was published in sections was absolutely damning for Blair and Campbell, demonstrating unambiguously that Gilligan's report was broadly correct apart from a few details. So when Lord Hutton published his conclusions, I finally got to understand that the saying 'my jaw dropped' wasn't just a figure of speech. What really gobsmacked me was his Lordship's argument that one should expect a higher standard of accuracy from a verbal report on the BBC 6am radio news (corrected in later versions that morning) than from an official government dossier with a written forward by the PM.
Your mileage may vary. But, yes, the Hutton report did change my mind, Never in my entire life would I have believed a 'distinguished' judge could come out with such an absurdly biased judgment. It was, literally, jaw-dropping.
They are advocating using the armed forces against their own countrymen. That's astonishing.
I remember the outrage when Polish troops shot Solidarity strikers in 1981 - when the point comes when a Government feels it has to turn its own troops on its own people a line has been crossed.
I've only seen bits of America - the chasm between wealth and poverty is frightening. I found San Francisco intimidating with pan handlers on every corner. It's different in Vegas - the poor and the dispossessed are usually out of sight but if you look Downtown in the early morning you'll see them.
MY experience of the restaurants is this - the servers (waiters/waitresses) are often white, very polite and eager to please. If you spend $120 on dinner they'll expect a $20 tip so make sure you've done well at the tables.
Then you have the people who set the tables and clear way the plates - generally hispanic. They move fast, avoid eye contact - their place in the hierarchy is clear.
The guests in the hotels come from all over the world but the weekend visitors are more often from the culturally conservative states. One evening Mrs Stodge and I had returned from dinner and got into the lift when this man rushed in and started lighting up his cigar in the lift.
We must have looked appalled - he was not exactly confrontational but perplexed until he heard my British accent at which point he became apologetic and said he understood "you do things different over there". That's America - I don't pretend to understand it, I don't think anyone does - the Americans included.
The outrage in Poland was not just because of the military crackdown, but especially because many of the soldiers in Polish uniforms could speak Russian but not Polish.
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
An interesting tale. Slightly ironic that a member of The Gang of Four died after a trip to China.
Retrospective antibody analysis of retained samples would be interesting.
The other interesting work is the genetic history stuff from the University of Cambridge. You can see - from mutations - which strains evolved from which, and can therefore identify the oldest strains in existence.
The Wuhan strain is not the oldest, which is extremely curious. It suggests the virus was active in the rest of China, killing people at a fairly low rate, until it had a superspreader event in Wuhan and exploded.
Hang on - weren't we told by SeanT and DonaldT that it escaped from a Wuhan lab?
That was a lab to which people brought already-existing viruses to study and modify, so the escape theory actually requires that the Wuhan strain is not the oldest.
It's a bit more complex than that, surely.
Let's call the first strain the Shanghai strain.
If it has two children, the South Korea strain and the Wuhan strain, then we know that the South Korea strain could not have come from the Wuhan one.
"Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought? WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
An interesting tale. Slightly ironic that a member of The Gang of Four died after a trip to China.
Retrospective antibody analysis of retained samples would be interesting.
The other interesting work is the genetic history stuff from the University of Cambridge. You can see - from mutations - which strains evolved from which, and can therefore identify the oldest strains in existence.
The Wuhan strain is not the oldest, which is extremely curious. It suggests the virus was active in the rest of China, killing people at a fairly low rate, until it had a superspreader event in Wuhan and exploded.
If corroborated that is very interesting. The super spreader explanation doesn't seem right though. It is seems likely that the conditions in Wuhan were for some reason better at incubating the disease so many people in a small area got infected, making this an important, but not the only source of the international infections.
On topic: There seems to be a very strong assumption (not by Ms CycleFree, I hasten to add) that some future enquiry will find the government culpable of neglect at best and most probably deliberate disregard of the risk, especially in the early stages.
I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:
One big question I would like to know the answer to. What was the advice that led from contact tracing to the policy of only testing hospital admissions.
We know the contract tracing couldn't keep up, and I believe this shift was down to a belief that home antibody tests would be available very quickly and that PHE could increase antigen testing somewhat.
Ultimately, Hancock made those calls, but I would like to know what exactly was said. It was a fundamental mistake, but we don't know based on what evidence or advice.
There was a wasted month here, where as Hancock did show that when he really demanded action, the public / private partnership has delivered (even if the 100k daily tests is a bit iffy and in a proportion of the tests it takes too long to get results).
Yes, that's certainly a topic which needs to be investigated, but I suspect it's a rather complicated one. One thing I would say is that I'd be cautious assuming that the ramp-up of tests could have been done a lot quicker than it was.
I don't think it is debatable it could have been. The PHE policy was to only use PHE labs and kit. We left all that uni lab kit sitting ideal, let alone the large pharma industry we have.
And setting up a drive-thru testing station is hardly rocket science. Find big car park, rope it off, test. I believe those conducting the tests at these sites just do a 2 day course to learn how to take the samples properly.
They might not have got to 100k, but that is always a bit of a secondary issue. What we needed was more capacity, processed quickly, sooner. I think it could have been achieved if PHE had been willing to use private firms and academia, as has been done in Germany.
PPE was largely dealt with by Lord Deighton as PPE tsar, a role pb had long argued for. Similar approaches may have helped in other areas. The second episode of the Martin Gilbert series on ww2 that is currently on iplayer is instructive on how wartime production was ramped up by cutting red tape.
As Mr Dickson has pointed out, there are four health authorities in the UK - not just PHE - and also four administrations - all doing things slightly differently - so once the dust settles I'm sure that will provide a lot of useful learning too.
As Mr Dickson has pointed out, there are four health authorities in the UK - not just PHE - and also four administrations - all doing things slightly differently - so once the dust settles I'm sure that will provide a lot of useful learning too.
On the surface, NI seems to have done best on things like testing.
Your mileage may vary. But, yes, the Hutton report did change my mind, Never in my entire life would I have believed a 'distinguished' judge could come out with such an absurdly biased judgment. It was, literally, jaw-dropping.
No, you're proving my point. You were convinced up to Hutton's report that Gilligan was right. When Hutton found otherwise, you immediately concluded that Hutton was wrong. The finding didn't influence you in the slightest, except to be more sceptical about judges.
But perhaps there are enquiries whose findings made most people say hmm, OK, I was wrong. Can you think of any?
The White House has just announced that the president will address the nation in 10 minutes' time.
I predict that he will follow in Mrs Thatcher's footsteps and quote St Francis of Assisi:
Where there is hatred, let us sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is discord, union; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy.
Comments
The enquiry should conclude that Johnson was useless before he got ill and worse than useless afterwards.
One thing I've learnt this pandemic is the urgency to be able to domestically ramp up production of globally in demand items. Especially in this instance Testing and PPE, plus obviously ICU equipment got the early intention but I think in hindsight Testing and PPE was more critical.
Personally I've always been a big believer in Ricardian Economics and never cared where our goods are manufactured. A standby domestic ability to ramp up production is a critical lesson for next time.
It will be many years I expect before we can properly evaluate the crisis and the way in which Government responded but we're entitled to take an early view if we wish, and C-free gives us a great template.
Thanks C.
WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/spate-of-possible-uk-coronavirus-cases-from-2019-come-to-light
Jenrick has made a decision a few weeks after he sat at the same table as one of the developers at a fundraising dinner. He claims that they brought it up and he said it would be inappropriate to discuss.
In generating the headline “police investigate” the political damage is done regardless of the truth of the matter.
There should be an alternative route to check if there is even a primary facia case before involving the police
Retrospective antibody analysis of retained samples would be interesting.
I'm also not sure that Labour has much to gain either, because they haven't taken a significantly different line on many things.
Boris might risk it of course if he is forced to and can chose the right chairman.
Then there is Professor Ferguson's code, which so many professionals have been sniffy about, although it is not clear its predictions have been greatly different from other models. Surely we need more robust and transparent models for the future. Once it was clear there was an issue with the good professor's program, why not chuck half a million quid at half a dozen software firms to have a go at cleaning it up?
The header touches on communication. There are perhaps two separate considerations. First, was it clear? As the header suggests, one problem was ministers up to and including the Prime Minister putting their own spin on it.
Secondly, was it even capable of being clear? The initial advice was quite simple: stay home unless A, B or C; keep 2m apart when you are out. What we have now is a bit of a mess. You can meet this many people from this many households in this place but not that one. As some noted, you can have sex in the gardern but not in the house. It is a mess. Thank Heaven the sainted Dominic Cummings has firmly established you can interpret the rules however you like because they do need interpreting. (And what was Cummings' role in Sage meetings?)
Why did we not commission more research into finding precisely how and where the virus spread, in practice as well as in theory? Indoors or out? In the air or on surfaces? Were some groups more likely to become infected, and if infected, to die, and why?
Oh, and schools. We cancelled exams but now want pupils to return to school during what would have been the exam season. Schools should reopen at different dates for different ages but only for certain age groups and most pupils are to stay at home, which makes you wonder what all the fuss is about.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/50858291
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Nedić
The tracking of the mutations of this virus don't suggest any major mutation has occurred, so what has been going on. Either it didn't come as early as that, instead there was some other nasty bug about, or shrugs shoulders....
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/publications/preparedness-for-a-high-impact-respiratory-pathogen-pandemic
Dominic Cummings might be a different kettle of fish. The inquiry might criticise him over Barnard Castle, or his unexplained involvement at SAGE, or it might exonerate him on the grounds he did not influence decisions. Is it better to be thought wrong or irrelevant, a fool or a knave?
The RCGP swabbing for flu survey included covid 19 fthrough most of February, but didn't find community acquired transmission of coronavirus until March 8th.
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-does-rcgp-surveillance-tell-us-about-covid-19-in-the-community/
A lagging indicator but important data.
Unless there is something to this idea of a level of immunity among certain groups due to blood type or previous exposure to coronaviruses.
So many unknowns e.g. why the original UK super-spreader managed to stay with 12 people in confined space for a week and I believe only half got it (and I don't believe any seriously). Where as somebody goes to church for an hour and 40 people get it.
White supremacist tries to drive over people? Trump says "there's good people on both sides"
Black man makes a peaceful protest? Trump loses his mind and tries to close it down.
If there's no avenue for peaceful protests then what do you expect to happen?
I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:
https://www.iiss.org/blogs/survival-blog/2020/05/the-uk-and-covid-19
A. Visit IKEA
B. Buy a car
C. Have sex in someone's garden
I'll go with HYUFD, Dura Ace and the latest incarnation of SeanT.
We know the contract tracing couldn't keep up, and I believe this shift was down to a belief that home antibody tests would be available very quickly and that PHE could increase antigen testing somewhat.
Ultimately, Hancock made those calls, but I would like to know what exactly was said. It was a fundamental mistake, but we don't know based on what evidence or advice.
There was a wasted month here, where as Hancock did show that when he really demanded action, the public / private partnership has delivered (even if the 100k daily tests is a bit iffy and in a proportion of the tests it takes too long to get results).
What some future enquiry might find is that the scientific advice was wrong. Maybe it was. But any old fool can be right in hindsight, and an enquiry - unless it's either just a straight witch-hunt or a Hutton-style whitewash - will focus on advice given and decisions made given the information and uncertainty at the time.
In that process - I hate to break the bad news - some guy on the internet who says he was shouting at the TV is unlikely to be given much weight.
Plus given what we know now about what makes the virus spread more - eg being indoors, singing etc that is prime for December. Festive season should be a prime period for spreading the virus yet there's no real evidence of it spreading before February at the earliest.
The Wuhan strain is not the oldest, which is extremely curious. It suggests the virus was active in the rest of China, killing people at a fairly low rate, until it had a superspreader event in Wuhan and exploded.
It’s really not very long at all.
It Hancock had come out and said "demand for testing is greater than our capacity so we regrettably need to ration the capacity we have for tests that clinically require it the most within the NHS but we are appealing to any company, research body or university that can assist in ramping up testing to help" then there could have been a quicker ramp up I suspect.
And setting up a drive-thru testing station is hardly rocket science. Find big car park, rope it off, test. I believe those conducting the tests at these sites just do a 2 day course to learn how to take the samples properly.
They might not have got to 100k, but that is always a bit of a secondary issue. What we needed was more capacity, processed quickly, sooner. I think it could have been achieved if PHE had been willing to use private firms and academia, as has been done in Germany.
* which is what the virus was doing even when we knew about it early on and were distancing already, it should have been more virulent not less before we knew about it.
https://twitter.com/WilliamsSharrie/status/1267574094234562560?s=20
The problem is that enquiries conclude so long after the event that minds have all been made up. If the outcome is unambiguous, they rejecvt it. If it's nuanced, they cherry-pick the bits they like.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-bame-review-delayed-again-due-to-proximity-to-us-race-riots-over-george-floyds-death-11998897
What happened to the Russia report btw?
Your mileage may vary. But, yes, the Hutton report did change my mind, Never in my entire life would I have believed a 'distinguished' judge could come out with such an absurdly biased judgment. It was, literally, jaw-dropping.
Let's call the first strain the Shanghai strain.
If it has two children, the South Korea strain and the Wuhan strain, then we know that the South Korea strain could not have come from the Wuhan one.
But perhaps there are enquiries whose findings made most people say hmm, OK, I was wrong. Can you think of any?
Where there is hatred, let us sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is discord, union;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy.