More or Less worth a listen again. Comparison with Germany very interesting, but ran the testing story again. The deception here really is disgraceful.
They picked the 15/5 when 136,000 tests were done but they are not only including posted tests but also non diagnosed tests carried out by Uni and Research Labs (30,000) so useful for other reasons but not tests to determine if people have or don't have Covid. Also 2nd tests are not generally because the previous test needs verifying, but because say the test was dropped on the floor or the testee vomited on the first test. Also a spit and nasal test is counted as two.
Total people tested = 43,000 out of a quoted figure of 136,000
It really is an appalling deception.
I have never heard 'More or Less' get so annoyed in its fact checking.
Again not news.
On the very day the 100,000 test target was announced, they announced five strands of testing including diagnostic and yes non-diagnostic testing etc - someone from the media asked what was meant by the 100,000 and Hancock replied that it was "all tests from all strands".
So that some are non-diagnostic is not news. It was what was said would be counted literally on day one.
A dropped test counts as 2 tests? You are defending the indefensible
Not the dropped test no, that's ridiculous to log that, but the non-diagnostic is what I referred to.
Who's dropping tests though and why are they logging them? I'd doubt that's a high proportion, at least I'd hope not.
This was reported on Jeremy Vine radio 2 on 8th April. By that stage we knew that Italy had realised, late in the day, that 1,000s were dying in their care homes. I imagine a conscious decision was made that the UK would tacitly accept care home deaths as the price of saving younger lives; where things went wrong was that our hospitals were not overwhelmed and that trade off was never there to be made.
The problem with this story that I don't see an easy answer to is the word "back".
This wasn't the hospital dumping a patient on a care home, this was a care home patient returning back to their own home after being discharged. Now in an ideal world they'd have been tested first but clearly there wasn't sufficient testing capacity to do that.
So I'm not sure what else they're supposed to do? Genuine question. If a care home has a patient who needs medical treatment they will quite rightly send them to the hospital but the hospital can't then have them live there forever. If not back to their own home they live in then where else should discharged patients return back to?
I think before the next pandemic we need a serious answer to this question. Because the only alternative solution I can think of is that hospitals refuse to take patients from care homes - which would increase care home deaths even more.
Surely the answer is this: the patient should not have been discharged from the hospital until they had a test for the virus. If it was positive, they stayed in hospital. Only if it was negative, could they go back to their home.
Discharging a patient with a highly infectious virus into a home with other vulnerable patients is a dereliction of duty by the NHS. It is also a dereliction of duty doing so when you don’t know whether they have this disease in the middle of an epidemic and don’t bother to find out. A policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is simply unacceptable in the middle of an an epidemic. If an elderly person had some other infectious disease would they be discharged from hospital? No. So why treat this virus differently when the whole purpose of lockdown was - allegedly - to protect the most vulnerable.
The only circumstances in which it might make sense would be if the care home were given all the necessary PPE equipment, staff and training to minimise exposure so that they could care for this patient like a hospital. But they weren’t and care homes are not hospitals in any case.
This 'could be seen as a difficult time' for Starmer as you say, but Boris is being tested in the areas he is absolutely weakest on: coping with decline, loss of liberty, message to play everything safe etc in a context where competent and boring delivery, communicated with accuracy and simplicity is really the only thing needed. To be LOTO when you can do the simple and boring accuracy (only simple if you know your stuff - ask any lawyer) and don't have to deliver is a lot easier than many contexts for taking over as LOTO.
In the long run Boris will be fortunate and brave if can overcome this one. At the moment the communication skills of government is much worse than I would have expected.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
The evidence for outdoor transmission is limited, the evidence for child to adult transmission is limited and yet we're still not allowed to interact socially outdoors and schools are still closed.
Someone in government needs to step up and explain all of this to the public in a clear and concise manner, laying out the scientific arguments in favour. In an age when we need a political colossus we have a bunch of pygmys all too scared of their own shadows to make decisions.
I would like to see more local higher education options, with flexibility on hours, length of course etc. Something like the old apprenticeships / night school.
Reduces cost, widens access, more relevant to need.
This was reported on Jeremy Vine radio 2 on 8th April. By that stage we knew that Italy had realised, late in the day, that 1,000s were dying in their care homes. I imagine a conscious decision was made that the UK would tacitly accept care home deaths as the price of saving younger lives; where things went wrong was that our hospitals were not overwhelmed and that trade off was never there to be made.
The problem with this story that I don't see an easy answer to is the word "back".
This wasn't the hospital dumping a patient on a care home, this was a care home patient returning back to their own home after being discharged. Now in an ideal world they'd have been tested first but clearly there wasn't sufficient testing capacity to do that.
So I'm not sure what else they're supposed to do? Genuine question. If a care home has a patient who needs medical treatment they will quite rightly send them to the hospital but the hospital can't then have them live there forever. If not back to their own home they live in then where else should discharged patients return back to?
I think before the next pandemic we need a serious answer to this question. Because the only alternative solution I can think of is that hospitals refuse to take patients from care homes - which would increase care home deaths even more.
Surely the answer is this: the patient should not have been discharged from the hospital until they had a test for the virus. If it was positive, they stayed in hospital. Only if it was negative, could they go back to their home.
Discharging a patient with a highly infectious virus into a home with other vulnerable patients is a dereliction of duty by the NHS. It is also a dereliction of duty doing so when you don’t know whether they have this disease in the middle of an epidemic and don’t bother to find out. A policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is simply unacceptable in the middle of an an epidemic. If an elderly person had some other infectious disease would they be discharged from hospital? No. So why treat this virus differently when the whole purpose of lockdown was - allegedly - to protect the most vulnerable.
The only circumstances in which it might make sense would be if the care home were given all the necessary PPE equipment, staff and training to minimise exposure so that they could care for this patient like a hospital. But they weren’t and care homes are not hospitals in any case.
Agreed the ideal solution is testing although even that's not perfect. Not only for the risks of false negatives but also it can take upto 24 hours to run a test and every hour after they were capable of being discharged that they hang around is another hour that they could pick up the virus. If someone tests negative due to a swap taken 12 hours earlier but 8 hours later they picked up the virus they're still flying blind.
Care homes need PPE and barrier nursing even with a negative test.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
The evidence for outdoor transmission is limited, the evidence for child to adult transmission is limited and yet we're still not allowed to interact socially outdoors and schools are still closed.
Someone in government needs to step up and explain all of this to the public in a clear and concise manner, laying out the scientific arguments in favour. In an age when we need a political colossus we have a bunch of pygmys all too scared of their own shadows to make decisions.
I am not a Unionist.. I have no opinion one way or another, The times wasn't very kind about the sainted Nicola and her handling of Scottish matters. Sooner or later questions will be asked.. and they are starting to be asked.
There seems to be a contradiction here: The outcomes in Scotland versus England seem broadly similar, yet the same people who claim that Boris will have to resign in disgrace for his handling of the epidemic, say Sturgeon has been made stronger.
This does not make sense.
Without commenting either way on the Scottish government’s performance, I note that could easily be reconciled by noting that the lamentable failings in the initial decision-making at a UK-wide level were the responsibility of Boris Johnson.
Health is devolved. The lockdown decisions are devolved. What isn't devolved is external borders, and there, I agree the UK government has fallen short.
Sturgeon had "advanced warning" of the consequences of a super spreader event after the NIKE conference in Edinburgh (as did PHE which were in the loop) - which no doubt will feature prominently in the Inquiry.
One thing she is doing is being "mother of the nation" fronting all the press conferences (which she does well) something Boris conspicuously hasn't (and when he did, didn't do as well).
This 'could be seen as a difficult time' for Starmer as you say, but Boris is being tested in the areas he is absolutely weakest on: coping with decline, loss of liberty, message to play everything safe etc in a context where competent and boring delivery, communicated with accuracy and simplicity is really the only thing needed. To be LOTO when you can do the simple and boring accuracy (only simple if you know your stuff - ask any lawyer) and don't have to deliver is a lot easier than many contexts for taking over as LOTO.
In the long run Boris will be fortunate and brave if can overcome this one. At the moment the communication skills of government is much worse than I would have expected.
The government Comms have been terrible because the only thing they are good at is lying and the current situation requires them to be truthful. Nobody believes a word they say now, even when they are telling the truth.
This is bad news for universities. If other institutions follow - and I can understand why - then the deferral rate for the 20/21 year will bankrupt them. Why would a student want to start a university course now where there are no lectures? Where there is no student life? Where you pay all the money for 15% of the experience?
My eldest due to start in September, now looking at a work experience year in schools. Will cost me a bit of money to enable him to pay his keep to his mum, but I don't see the point in losing a year of university doing courses in his bedroom...
Cambridge (and Oxford) has a different model. The most worthwhile teaching for most (all?) subjects is very regular 1:1 or 2:1 or 4/5:1 with tutors.
Wouldn't surprise me if more students attend the online lectures than the physical ones - when I bothered to go to my one weekly lecture, there was rarely more than 20% attendance.
At my university there are contingency plans for online lectures to continue and expected to be the case, at least in part, for the Autumn term. It does beg the question of why students would go this year, not because the teaching will be lower quality (in most courses, those with labs may be tricky) but due to the lack of student experience. Imagine going somewhere completely new and not being able to socialise with others except online. Having said that, what are the alternatives? Gap years are going to be pretty dull if there are restrictions; there won't be many jobs to fill the space. So maybe not as bad as we all might expect.
If student numbers do plummet then there will obviously be a big black hole in university finances. But universities are businesses that should recover pretty much fully after the pandemic, even with a bit of a boom from deferred students. So what do they do - extended furlough scheme for lecturers? Temporary redundancy? (many have options and may never come back). Loans (government or otherwise) to tide over universities?
This will particularly affect the old polytechnics that are more focused on teaching, I guess. My department (Russell group uni) has far more income from research than students and I'm not directly affected (research contract and my own funding for the next couple of years) but expect pay freezes/cuts etc to apply to all. On the face of it, stock market falls will also deepen the Universities' pensions funding shortfall. We already pay almost 10% of salary in pension; employers pay over 20% (that second figure is particularly nuts). Something has to give, but it won't be pretty. Interesting times ahead.
(In case not clear, I'm aware that I'm very lucky - secure job for now, no pay cut so far, easy for me to work from home, but my industry may have big problems in the next year or so)
30% of pay into pensions across the university? Am I reading that right or is it an individual choice? That is crazy, particularly in a sector where people can work at a high level into their sixties and beyond. Surely it just encourages people to retire at 50ish?
Yep, you read it right 30% of overall salary, but only 10% from employee (although if universities weren't putting in 20% you could assume that headline pay might be a bit higher too). The crazy employer rates are, in theory, temporary to try and make up projected shortfalls (this all precedes the coronavirus stock market falls too). Nuts. Private sector more like 10-15% total, employee and employer?
As to why everyone doesn't retire early, at least for recentish joiners to the scheme the early retirement options are not very attractive. It is defined benefit, but for at least the last ten years or so average rather than final salary (each year of service adds 1/80, or maybe 1/85 I forget, of current salary to yearly pension - so say for a researcher on £40k each year adds £500 to the yearly pension amount - 10 years service at £40k gives a retirement pension of £5000/year. £40 years service at £40k would give a retirement pension of £20k/year - realistically you can expect over a full career to get a pension of approx half of your average career earnings. In the good old days it was 1/80 (actually better, I think, maybe 1/70 or more per year of service) of final salary. If you finished on £80k and had 40 years service you could retire on £40k. Those who paid in when it was final salary still get that number of years as final salary, which doesn't help with the shortfalls.
I think coronavirus might be the thing that finally does for defined benefit pensions in universities. Not necessarily a bad thing, but there will be mass outrage, I expect.
In which case I wonder if there is a ponzi scheme element to this, the 30% is needed not for the current set of people working but for the already retired?
If you were actually paying 30% of salary into a scheme for 40 years, you would surely end up with a pension of well over 100% your final salary.
On schools: it's the logistics. I've got a friend who works in one and they're desperately trying to work out how to make it work.
They wish to maintain social distancing as much as practicable. After all, even if kids don't die of this as much (albeit there are, I am reliably informed, children with asthma or diabetes or even other issues that can make them specifically vulnerable), it has been found that the vast majority of them live in households that contain adults.
Some of these adults will be vulnerable. Risk categories include asthma, diabetes, hypertension, age, vitamin D deficiency, and being male. If just 10% of households contain vulnerable adults, then any randomly chosen group of 7 children will have a better than fifty-fifty chance that a vulnerable adult is in close daily contact with at least one of them.
We have found some indications that children might not carry the disease to infect others. Unfortunately, this hasn't been confirmed in any remotely reliable way. It's also difficult to see how you could catch it from touching a parcel (confirmed) but not from touching a child's skin or clothes. After all, they are indeed mobile surfaces that interact with others.
So - social distancing. Maximum of 10 children per class to have any chance of this. Most schools don't have anywhere near enough classrooms to cope with even a half of their normal capacity while maintaining social distancing. Children to stay in that single bubble and not mingle. They have to go to the loo at specified times to be escorted and controlled in their group. Sectioned-off areas of the playground. No sharing anything. No playing games in close contact. No hugging friends. So many restrictions that the teachers may not have the opportunity to, you know, teach anything.
Children have been looking on a return to school and their friends as a source of hope. They traipse in, and cannot come close to their friends, have to stay in their "bubble" (even if their best friends are in another one", are in the wrong classroom with weird restrictions, probably with the wrong teacher, who's wearing mask and gloves.
Yeah, this will work well, won't it?
I have been thinking all of the above, thanks for expressing so eloquently.
If lockdown is lifted, “social distancing” has to stop. Basic, sensible hygiene measures: yes. But the idea that you can have venues and activities where social closeness is integral to the very nature of what is going on at the same time as “social distancing” is contradictory nonsense.
He’s been getting feedback from MPs I’d guess. I’ve been asking the parents in my social group in a non-leading way about this and even the most government-friendly ones are very wary. Compelling parents to put their children in what they perceive as harm’s way would be hugely unpopular.
Or so they say in a social group.
In my experience (on a 1:1 basis) opinion is very mixed.
One of my colleagues I spoke to yesterday is sending his back on Day One, same as me.
I don’t have children and I sympathise with your approach (indeed, I have been encouraging parents to send them back to school when the time comes, not least because most of the parents look knackered).
The fear of many about the health risks is clear. The studies about something like Kawasaki syndrome have been picked up on a lot.
It is fear. I remember similar fears about AIDS and therefore unprotected sex in the early 90s and I was terrified of eating beef for a couple of years in case I got mad cow disease.
It's largely irrational.
I see a real split amongst my network. Those parents who have management jobs and no at home childcare arrangements (spouse, live in grandparents etc) are pretty keen to get their kids back to school. Those with slightly less onerous jobs, much more reluctance....in line with @AlastairMeeks experience.
One effect of the lockdown, I think, is a splintering of life experience along new lines. Without the social mixing (online works for *some* people) to distribute and "spread" opinion.
So, for some people, send the kids back to school is an unreasonable risk - the online teaching is working fine, they have domestic arrangements that mean home schooling is working. They might even be finding that it is nicer to have the kids at home - take a break from WFH, and see them....
Equally, for some people, it is hell - the children are miserable* without their friends & social interaction, there's no space at home, the school is 100% shut.
It is the unusual pattern of these different experiences that is worth thinking about.
It is not on the classic lines of wealth - but there is a similar element of walk-a-mile-in-others-shoes.
*Not just upset - but in some cases having serious problems.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
The evidence for outdoor transmission is limited, the evidence for child to adult transmission is limited and yet we're still not allowed to interact socially outdoors and schools are still closed.
Someone in government needs to step up and explain all of this to the public in a clear and concise manner, laying out the scientific arguments in favour. In an age when we need a political colossus we have a bunch of pygmys all too scared of their own shadows to make decisions.
Also, the risk of suffering very badly from this based on age. No underlying health condition, Under 20, risk is virtually zero. Under 40, still very very low.
I think there massive misconception about who is suffering based on media reporting, often highlighting the tragic case of the odd individual, who isn't the majority i.e. old, overweight, underlying health condition.
Even oldies, we are talking about 10-15% mortality rate, which is very very high, but it is still 9 out of 10 oldies surviving. But lots of cancers, we are talking higher than that. I think a lot of people think every 70-80 year old getting this is dying.
In normal times either these exceptional cases aren't reported or prefaced with the reporting this because it is so exceptional
Hydroxychloroquine is used as an anti-malarial is it not ?
It may or may not be effective against Covid, but I don't think it's that dangerous; particularly when you have instant medical care on hand as the president does in case of any side effects.
• This represents the single greatest failure of devolved government since the creation of the Scottish Parliament.
• Decisive action might have helped reduce the risk and would have prevented deaths
• Scotland has a regulatory framework which puts private ownership and private financial interests before care and there are no effective mechanisms for improving standards of care in failing Care Homes. 'Partnership working' (cooperation with private companies) comes before standards.
• Few Care Homes have the health skills necessary to prevent Covid spread, exacerbated by a recruitment crisis resulting from low pay in the sector
• The privatisation of the care sector is clearly not in the public interest.
• For two months the Scottish Government was simply in denial about what was happening in Care Homes.
I would like to see more local higher education options, with flexibility on hours, length of course etc. Something like the old apprenticeships / night school.
Reduces cost, widens access, more relevant to need.
I think the idea that you *have* to go to University at 18 and choose your career (largely) at that point is one thing that should change.
When I went to Uni in the 90s, there were already a fair chunk of the class who were mature students - their stories were remarkably similar. Pushed into doing subjects that they weren't keen on, they dropped out previously....
Some people are ready at 18. Some people would benefit from doing something else first. Almost as if the human condition varies or something.
This is bad news for universities. If other institutions follow - and I can understand why - then the deferral rate for the 20/21 year will bankrupt them. Why would a student want to start a university course now where there are no lectures? Where there is no student life? Where you pay all the money for 15% of the experience?
My eldest due to start in September, now looking at a work experience year in schools. Will cost me a bit of money to enable him to pay his keep to his mum, but I don't see the point in losing a year of university doing courses in his bedroom...
Cambridge (and Oxford) has a different model. The most worthwhile teaching for most (all?) subjects is very regular 1:1 or 2:1 or 4/5:1 with tutors.
Wouldn't surprise me if more students attend the online lectures than the physical ones - when I bothered to go to my one weekly lecture, there was rarely more than 20% attendance.
At my university there are contingency plans for online lectures to continue and expected to be the case, at least in part, for the Autumn term. It does beg the question of why students would go this year, not because the teaching will be lower quality (in most courses, those with labs may be tricky) but due to the lack of student experience. Imagine going somewhere completely new and not being able to socialise with others except online. Having said that, what are the alternatives? Gap years are going to be pretty dull if there are restrictions; there won't be many jobs to fill the space. So maybe not as bad as we all might expect.
If student numbers do plummet then there will obviously be a big black hole in university finances. But universities are businesses that should recover pretty much fully after the pandemic, even with a bit of a boom from deferred students. So what do they do - extended furlough scheme for lecturers? Temporary redundancy? (many have options and may never come back). Loans (government or otherwise) to tide over universities?
This will particularly affect the old polytechnics that are more focused on teaching, I guess. My department (Russell group uni) has far more income from research than students and I'm not directly affected (research contract and my own funding for the next couple of years) but expect pay freezes/cuts etc to apply to all. On the face of it, stock market falls will also deepen the Universities' pensions funding shortfall. We already pay almost 10% of salary in pension; employers pay over 20% (that second figure is particularly nuts). Something has to give, but it won't be pretty. Interesting times ahead.
(In case not clear, I'm aware that I'm very lucky - secure job for now, no pay cut so far, easy for me to work from home, but my industry may have big problems in the next year or so)
30% of pay into pensions across the university? Am I reading that right or is it an individual choice? That is crazy, particularly in a sector where people can work at a high level into their sixties and beyond. Surely it just encourages people to retire at 50ish?
Yep, you read it right 30% of overall salary, but only 10% from employee (although if universities weren't putting in 20% you could assume that headline pay might be a bit higher too). The crazy employer rates are, in theory, temporary to try and make up projected shortfalls (this all precedes the coronavirus stock market falls too). Nuts. Private sector more like 10-15% total, employee and employer?
As to why everyone doesn't retire early, at least for recentish joiners to the scheme the early retirement options are not very attractive. It is defined benefit, but for at least the last ten years or so average rather than final salary (each year of service adds 1/80, or maybe 1/85 I forget, of current salary to yearly pension - so say for a researcher on £40k each year adds £500 to the yearly pension amount - 10 years service at £40k gives a retirement pension of £5000/year. £40 years service at £40k would give a retirement pension of £20k/year - realistically you can expect over a full career to get a pension of approx half of your average career earnings. In the good old days it was 1/80 (actually better, I think, maybe 1/70 or more per year of service) of final salary. If you finished on £80k and had 40 years service you could retire on £40k. Those who paid in when it was final salary still get that number of years as final salary, which doesn't help with the shortfalls.
I think coronavirus might be the thing that finally does for defined benefit pensions in universities. Not necessarily a bad thing, but there will be mass outrage, I expect.
In which case I wonder if there is a ponzi scheme element to this, the 30% is needed not for the current set of people working but for the already retired?
If you were actually paying 30% of salary into a scheme for 40 years, you would surely end up with a pension of well over 100% your final salary.
Yep, making up a projected deficit. As someone who missed out on final salary, I'm of the opinion that the scheme was too slow to switch to average salary. Everyone's paying in more to stop the scheme going bust before we retire.
This was reported on Jeremy Vine radio 2 on 8th April. By that stage we knew that Italy had realised, late in the day, that 1,000s were dying in their care homes. I imagine a conscious decision was made that the UK would tacitly accept care home deaths as the price of saving younger lives; where things went wrong was that our hospitals were not overwhelmed and that trade off was never there to be made.
The problem with this story that I don't see an easy answer to is the word "back".
This wasn't the hospital dumping a patient on a care home, this was a care home patient returning back to their own home after being discharged. Now in an ideal world they'd have been tested first but clearly there wasn't sufficient testing capacity to do that.
So I'm not sure what else they're supposed to do? Genuine question. If a care home has a patient who needs medical treatment they will quite rightly send them to the hospital but the hospital can't then have them live there forever. If not back to their own home they live in then where else should discharged patients return back to?
I think before the next pandemic we need a serious answer to this question. Because the only alternative solution I can think of is that hospitals refuse to take patients from care homes - which would increase care home deaths even more.
Surely the answer is this: the patient should not have been discharged from the hospital until they had a test for the virus. If it was positive, they stayed in hospital. Only if it was negative, could they go back to their home.
Discharging a patient with a highly infectious virus into a home with other vulnerable patients is a dereliction of duty by the NHS. It is also a dereliction of duty doing so when you don’t know whether they have this disease in the middle of an epidemic and don’t bother to find out. A policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is simply unacceptable in the middle of an an epidemic. If an elderly person had some other infectious disease would they be discharged from hospital? No. So why treat this virus differently when the whole purpose of lockdown was - allegedly - to protect the most vulnerable.
The only circumstances in which it might make sense would be if the care home were given all the necessary PPE equipment, staff and training to minimise exposure so that they could care for this patient like a hospital. But they weren’t and care homes are not hospitals in any case.
Two problems. The discharge was before there was adequate testing capacity in England (Johnson), Scotland (Sturgeon) Wales (Drakeford - still) and NI (Foster)
Secondly, Care Homes should be able to support barrier nursing of infected patients - clearly many/most can't. I think the 4 NHS's assumed they could. For a review of Care Homes in Scotland see:
Hydroxychloroquine is used as an anti-malarial is it not ?
It may or may not be effective against Covid, but I don't think it's that dangerous; particularly when you have instant medical care on hand as the president does in case of any side effects.
It can have pretty nasty side effects - if you mix with pre-existing conditions, it could well be lethal, IIRC.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
The evidence for outdoor transmission is limited, the evidence for child to adult transmission is limited and yet we're still not allowed to interact socially outdoors and schools are still closed.
Someone in government needs to step up and explain all of this to the public in a clear and concise manner, laying out the scientific arguments in favour. In an age when we need a political colossus we have a bunch of pygmys all too scared of their own shadows to make decisions.
In fairness, England and Scotland are far from alone. Most of the planet went insane for a bit there.
It is actually Sweden which is the outlier. I think history is going to prove that ten million of us got this right, and seven billion of you got it wrong. Time will tell.
If lockdown is lifted, “social distancing” has to stop. Basic, sensible hygiene measures: yes. But the idea that you can have venues and activities where social closeness is integral to the very nature of what is going on at the same time as “social distancing” is contradictory nonsense.
Why? It's not a binary on/off switch.
The shape of what's coming, internationally, is, I think, becoming clear. In economic terms, we are going to see neither a 'V' nor a 'U' nor an 'L' shaped recession. Instead, the profile going to be something like an 'L' initially but with the bottom glyph gradually turning upwards in a slow, incremental recovery. It will probably take some years before economies are back to pre-Covid-19 levels, even if a vaccine becomes widely available some time next year..
On a sector level, we are going to see a very mixed picture. Factories will largely re-open, provided they are making things which are still in demand. Offices will partially return to semi-normal with social distancing and other precautions in place, but with many or most workers still working from home. Retail - or the bit of it which survives - is going to run at reduced capacity, with social distancing precautions in place for quite a while. Schools will reopen tentatively. Universities, hotels, restaurants, pubs, theatres, concert halls, airlines, civil aviation manufacturing are completely stuffed. Non-Covid healthcare will stutter back into life but at reduced capacity.
Hydroxychloroquine is used as an anti-malarial is it not ?
It may or may not be effective against Covid, but I don't think it's that dangerous; particularly when you have instant medical care on hand as the president does in case of any side effects.
Here are some of the side effects:
severe mood or mental changes feeling that others can hear your thoughts feeling, seeing, or hearing things that are not there unusual behaviour yellow eyes or skin
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
...
We need to get the death toll down to a trickle and the problems people talking about here largely disappear of their own accord. The governments are getting those numbers down but it's taking longer than it should because of previous and current mistakes. The only way of getting numbers down to a trickle right now is through continued social distancing. There aren't any shortcuts.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
The evidence for outdoor transmission is limited, the evidence for child to adult transmission is limited and yet we're still not allowed to interact socially outdoors and schools are still closed.
Someone in government needs to step up and explain all of this to the public in a clear and concise manner, laying out the scientific arguments in favour. In an age when we need a political colossus we have a bunch of pygmys all too scared of their own shadows to make decisions.
I know I bang on about my poor mother in a care home - sorry - but I talked to the care home manager yesterday (again). I pressed her on why I can`t see my mother - why is the care home refusing my request for them to load mum in a wheelchair, wheel her outside into the car park and allow us to see her 2 metres away. We can`t allow that, the manager said, the government says no and care home`s are politically hot topic at the moment.
No recognition of the mental health of the residents at all.
I notice Sunak is nervously breaking the bad news about the economy. Of course most people have still got their eyes shut and their fingers in their ears.
The next big scandal/crisis will involve equity release schemes, that could get very nasty
I am not a Unionist.. I have no opinion one way or another, The times wasn't very kind about the sainted Nicola and her handling of Scottish matters. Sooner or later questions will be asked.. and they are starting to be asked.
There seems to be a contradiction here: The outcomes in Scotland versus England seem broadly similar, yet the same people who claim that Boris will have to resign in disgrace for his handling of the epidemic, say Sturgeon has been made stronger.
This does not make sense.
Without commenting either way on the Scottish government’s performance, I note that could easily be reconciled by noting that the lamentable failings in the initial decision-making at a UK-wide level were the responsibility of Boris Johnson.
Health is devolved. The lockdown decisions are devolved. What isn't devolved is external borders, and there, I agree the UK government has fallen short.
Sturgeon had "advanced warning" of the consequences of a super spreader event after the NIKE conference in Edinburgh (as did PHE which were in the loop) - which no doubt will feature prominently in the Inquiry.
One thing she is doing is being "mother of the nation" fronting all the press conferences (which she does well) something Boris conspicuously hasn't (and when he did, didn't do as well).
Faint praise is still praise. And coming from a rampant cyberbritnat like Carlotta it sounds like a megaphone.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
The evidence for outdoor transmission is limited, the evidence for child to adult transmission is limited and yet we're still not allowed to interact socially outdoors and schools are still closed.
Someone in government needs to step up and explain all of this to the public in a clear and concise manner, laying out the scientific arguments in favour. In an age when we need a political colossus we have a bunch of pygmys all too scared of their own shadows to make decisions.
In fairness, England and Scotland are far from alone. Most of the planet went insane for a bit there.
It is actually Sweden which is the outlier. I think history is going to prove that ten million of us got this right, and seven billion of you got it wrong. Time will tell.
I think there is a happy medium which Germany seems to have cracked. The Swedish approach seems to sacrifice the medium term in favour of a longer shallower dip while the UK and other national approaches take a larger up front hit in the hope of a full reopening a few months later such as Italy. Germany seems to have the best approach IMO.
I doubt the reviews of Care Homes anywhere in the UK will make for comfortable reading:
This meant that medical treatments which could have been delivered in Care Homes (such as the provision of oxygen) were not supported by the Scottish Government which left treatment to the discretion of private companies geared around property finance. In addition the nature of the deaths of Care Home residents was not taken to be a government responsibility and so the use of palliative measures (to make deaths as comfortable as possible) was also left to Providers. This almost certainly means many old people faced an absolutely unnecessarily uncomfortable and painful death. Health staff were not instructed to take the clinical lead in Care Homes until 17 May.
It’s pretty obvious that the assessment was that the biggest threat from the virus came from an overwhelmed health service. Everything was done in that context (cancelling routine and non emergency hospital treatment and cancellations, clearing the beds, and indeed the lockdown policy itself etc etc). It didn’t help clearly that Care homes fall outside of the jurisdiction of those planning and implementing this policy. Since the health service wasn’t overwhelmed it’s difficult to know if that was ultimately justified.
It may be the case that age and vulnerability is far far more important than ability to access hospital care and most of the approach was therefore misguided.
The point is that they did not know that the health service was not going to be overwhelmed. Imagine if they did not clear hospitals out and then the NHS was overrun. How many retweets would there be from Scott about the Governments failure to protect the NHS?
I wouldn't be surprised if similar post hoc justifications were made for the Maginot Line.
For Conrad fans, It's like Lord Jim - the problem being the ship not sinking.
The Maginot line actually worked - it held up German attacks etc. Some portions of it only surrendered after the main French surrender. Yes - it didn't cover Belgium etc. But it's job was to funnel the attack(s) and to make things much easier for the rest of army.
Any fortification system requires an active army to work with it - just sitting in the bunkers doesn't work. This was known at the time the Line was built and was part of the war plans....
The French army outside the Maginot line got pasted.
Hydroxychloroquine is used as an anti-malarial is it not ?
It may or may not be effective against Covid, but I don't think it's that dangerous; particularly when you have instant medical care on hand as the president does in case of any side effects.
It can have pretty nasty side effects - if you mix with pre-existing conditions, it could well be lethal, IIRC.
Most ant-malarial drugs are pretty nasty things.
Yepp. I’m never visiting The Gambia again, primarily for that reason. The Yellow Fever jab before, and the anti malaria pills during the holiday completely wiped out the pleasure of the break. I will never again book a holiday in a malaria area.
I notice Sunak is nervously breaking the bad news about the economy. Of course most people have still got their eyes shut and their fingers in their ears.
The next big scandal/crisis will involve equity release schemes, that could get very nasty
What is the problem with equity release (a subject I know nothing about)?
More or Less worth a listen again. Comparison with Germany very interesting, but ran the testing story again. The deception here really is disgraceful.
They picked the 15/5 when 136,000 tests were done but they are not only including posted tests but also non diagnosed tests carried out by Uni and Research Labs (30,000) so useful for other reasons but not tests to determine if people have or don't have Covid. Also 2nd tests are not generally because the previous test needs verifying, but because say the test was dropped on the floor or the testee vomited on the first test. Also a spit and nasal test is counted as two.
Total people tested = 43,000 out of a quoted figure of 136,000
It really is an appalling deception.
I have never heard 'More or Less' get so annoyed in its fact checking.
Again not news.
On the very day the 100,000 test target was announced, they announced five strands of testing including diagnostic and yes non-diagnostic testing etc - someone from the media asked what was meant by the 100,000 and Hancock replied that it was "all tests from all strands".
So that some are non-diagnostic is not news. It was what was said would be counted literally on day one.
A dropped test counts as 2 tests? You are defending the indefensible
Not the dropped test no, that's ridiculous to log that, but the non-diagnostic is what I referred to.
Who's dropping tests though and why are they logging them? I'd doubt that's a high proportion, at least I'd hope not.
It appears that the 2nd tests are because of failures to take the test in the first place largely not because they are going back to retest, but because of vomiting on the test, dropping the test, etc because of the difficulty in taking the test. Also a throat and nasal test is counted as 2 tests! I don't know why some tests are single swabs and some are 2 swabs, but it is still 1 test in my book if the test consists of 2 swabs (nose and throat). The lab might do 2 tests but it is 1 person tested. The number of 2 tests on that day was 26,000 for all reasons.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
The evidence for outdoor transmission is limited, the evidence for child to adult transmission is limited and yet we're still not allowed to interact socially outdoors and schools are still closed.
Someone in government needs to step up and explain all of this to the public in a clear and concise manner, laying out the scientific arguments in favour. In an age when we need a political colossus we have a bunch of pygmys all too scared of their own shadows to make decisions.
In fairness, England and Scotland are far from alone. Most of the planet went insane for a bit there.
It is actually Sweden which is the outlier. I think history is going to prove that ten million of us got this right, and seven billion of you got it wrong. Time will tell.
I am nearly certain history will prove Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan got this right and that Germany etc got this partly right, Sweden got this wrong and no-one in their right mind would use the UK as an example.
And in the end is all about getting the death toll down. Everything follows from that
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
The evidence for outdoor transmission is limited, the evidence for child to adult transmission is limited and yet we're still not allowed to interact socially outdoors and schools are still closed.
Someone in government needs to step up and explain all of this to the public in a clear and concise manner, laying out the scientific arguments in favour. In an age when we need a political colossus we have a bunch of pygmys all too scared of their own shadows to make decisions.
In fairness, England and Scotland are far from alone. Most of the planet went insane for a bit there.
It is actually Sweden which is the outlier. I think history is going to prove that ten million of us got this right, and seven billion of you got it wrong. Time will tell.
I think there is a happy medium which Germany seems to have cracked. The Swedish approach seems to sacrifice the medium term in favour of a longer shallower dip while the UK and other national approaches take a larger up front hit in the hope of a full reopening a few months later such as Italy. Germany seems to have the best approach IMO.
I have my own theories of why Sweden behaves like Sweden, and it is nothing whatsoever to do with dips or curves.
Hydroxychloroquine is used as an anti-malarial is it not ?
It may or may not be effective against Covid, but I don't think it's that dangerous; particularly when you have instant medical care on hand as the president does in case of any side effects.
It can have pretty nasty side effects - if you mix with pre-existing conditions, it could well be lethal, IIRC.
Most ant-malarial drugs are pretty nasty things.
Yepp. I’m never visiting The Gambia again, primarily for that reason. The Yellow Fever jab before, and the anti malaria pills during the holiday completely wiped out the pleasure of the break. I will never again book a holiday in a malaria area.
IIRC various armies made taking malarial drugs a disciplinary matter - because so many people stop taking them. This had/is leading to some big legal claims over side effects. Larium figures pretty largely.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
...
We need to get the death toll down to a trickle and the problems people talking about here largely disappear of their own accord. The governments are getting those numbers down but it's taking longer than it should because of previous and current mistakes. The only way of getting numbers down to a trickle right now is through continued social distancing. There aren't any shortcuts.
That's not true. People under 40 without any health conditions can essentially lead a normal life as long as they limit their contact to that group. Kids also don't give it to adults so schools should be back as long as teachers maintain social distancing measures between themselves and other staff.
There is a huge mental health toll on younger generations that isn't being addressed, kids aren't seeing their friends, teenagers aren't seeing their girlfriends and boyfriends, young adults aren't dating or seeing their friends, loads are sitting at home unemployed or furloughed in misery when it is not clear that they need to be.
It doesn't matter how ageist it looks to let everyone under 40 without health conditions get on with life as normal but that is what needs to happen. The government are too worried about how things will look.
More or Less worth a listen again. Comparison with Germany very interesting, but ran the testing story again. The deception here really is disgraceful.
They picked the 15/5 when 136,000 tests were done but they are not only including posted tests but also non diagnosed tests carried out by Uni and Research Labs (30,000) so useful for other reasons but not tests to determine if people have or don't have Covid. Also 2nd tests are not generally because the previous test needs verifying, but because say the test was dropped on the floor or the testee vomited on the first test. Also a spit and nasal test is counted as two.
Total people tested = 43,000 out of a quoted figure of 136,000
It really is an appalling deception.
I have never heard 'More or Less' get so annoyed in its fact checking.
Again not news.
On the very day the 100,000 test target was announced, they announced five strands of testing including diagnostic and yes non-diagnostic testing etc - someone from the media asked what was meant by the 100,000 and Hancock replied that it was "all tests from all strands".
So that some are non-diagnostic is not news. It was what was said would be counted literally on day one.
A dropped test counts as 2 tests? You are defending the indefensible
Not the dropped test no, that's ridiculous to log that, but the non-diagnostic is what I referred to.
Who's dropping tests though and why are they logging them? I'd doubt that's a high proportion, at least I'd hope not.
It appears that the 2nd tests are because of failures to take the test in the first place largely not because they are going back to retest, but because of vomiting on the test, dropping the test, etc because of the difficulty in taking the test. Also a throat and nasal test is counted as 2 tests! I don't know why some tests are single swabs and some are 2 swabs, but it is still 1 test in my book if the test consists of 2 swabs (nose and throat). The lab might do 2 tests but it is 1 person tested. The number of 2 tests on that day was 26,000 for all reasons.
I disagree, a swab test and a nasal test is 2 tests. It literally is 2 tests - one person, 2 tests.
Would you consider a swab test and a blood test to be just one test?
Justice Secretary Robert Buckland was challenged on BBC Breakfast about trust in the government after his ministerial colleague Therese Coffey wrongly claimed that more than 100,000 people had been tested for coronavirus on some days.
Presenter Louise Minchin said that in fact there was "not a single day" when more than 100,000 people had received tests, and asked him if claims like these undermined trust.
Mr Buckland said the government needed to be "straightforward", adding that where there had been difficulties "everybody has known about it".
He also acknowledged that the planned contact tracing system and app were "still very much work in progress" and might not be "full-blown" by the time schools are due to open on 1 June.
Mr Buckland said the government needed to "listen very carefully" to schools concerned about readmitting more children and acknowledged that there may not be a "uniform" return to teaching
More or Less worth a listen again. Comparison with Germany very interesting, but ran the testing story again. The deception here really is disgraceful.
They picked the 15/5 when 136,000 tests were done but they are not only including posted tests but also non diagnosed tests carried out by Uni and Research Labs (30,000) so useful for other reasons but not tests to determine if people have or don't have Covid. Also 2nd tests are not generally because the previous test needs verifying, but because say the test was dropped on the floor or the testee vomited on the first test. Also a spit and nasal test is counted as two.
Total people tested = 43,000 out of a quoted figure of 136,000
It really is an appalling deception.
I have never heard 'More or Less' get so annoyed in its fact checking.
Again not news.
On the very day the 100,000 test target was announced, they announced five strands of testing including diagnostic and yes non-diagnostic testing etc - someone from the media asked what was meant by the 100,000 and Hancock replied that it was "all tests from all strands".
So that some are non-diagnostic is not news. It was what was said would be counted literally on day one.
A dropped test counts as 2 tests? You are defending the indefensible
Not the dropped test no, that's ridiculous to log that, but the non-diagnostic is what I referred to.
Who's dropping tests though and why are they logging them? I'd doubt that's a high proportion, at least I'd hope not.
It appears that the 2nd tests are because of failures to take the test in the first place largely not because they are going back to retest, but because of vomiting on the test, dropping the test, etc because of the difficulty in taking the test. Also a throat and nasal test is counted as 2 tests! I don't know why some tests are single swabs and some are 2 swabs, but it is still 1 test in my book if the test consists of 2 swabs (nose and throat). The lab might do 2 tests but it is 1 person tested. The number of 2 tests on that day was 26,000 for all reasons.
I disagree, a swab test and a nasal test is 2 tests. It literally is 2 tests - one person, 2 tests.
Would you consider a swab test and a blood test to be just one test?
You’re getting ridiculous with this literal interpretation of everything now. Come on. It doesn’t matter in the big picture if they are “1 test” or “2 tests”, but the implication is that the Government is testing more people than they actually are. Leaving politics aside, it’s better if we’re testing more people. The number of “tests” is irrelevant. The number of people tested is relevant.
I doubt the reviews of Care Homes anywhere in the UK will make for comfortable reading:
This meant that medical treatments which could have been delivered in Care Homes (such as the provision of oxygen) were not supported by the Scottish Government which left treatment to the discretion of private companies geared around property finance. In addition the nature of the deaths of Care Home residents was not taken to be a government responsibility and so the use of palliative measures (to make deaths as comfortable as possible) was also left to Providers. This almost certainly means many old people faced an absolutely unnecessarily uncomfortable and painful death. Health staff were not instructed to take the clinical lead in Care Homes until 17 May.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
...
We need to get the death toll down to a trickle and the problems people talking about here largely disappear of their own accord. The governments are getting those numbers down but it's taking longer than it should because of previous and current mistakes. The only way of getting numbers down to a trickle right now is through continued social distancing. There aren't any shortcuts.
That's not true. People under 40 without any health conditions can essentially lead a normal life as long as they limit their contact to that group. Kids also don't give it to adults so schools should be back as long as teachers maintain social distancing measures between themselves and other staff.
There is a huge mental health toll on younger generations that isn't being addressed, kids aren't seeing their friends, teenagers aren't seeing their girlfriends and boyfriends, young adults aren't dating or seeing their friends, loads are sitting at home unemployed or furloughed in misery when it is not clear that they need to be.
It doesn't matter how ageist it looks to let everyone under 40 without health conditions get on with life as normal but that is what needs to happen. The government are too worried about how things will look.
How on earth do you partition the society into those over 40 anfd those under 40? That would also bring a huge toll on younger genertaions. There are a huge number of parents over 40 with children who are not old enough to look after themselves, even before you start to think of the jobs done by over 40s that people under 40 depend on.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
The evidence for outdoor transmission is limited, the evidence for child to adult transmission is limited and yet we're still not allowed to interact socially outdoors and schools are still closed.
Someone in government needs to step up and explain all of this to the public in a clear and concise manner, laying out the scientific arguments in favour. In an age when we need a political colossus we have a bunch of pygmys all too scared of their own shadows to make decisions.
Also, the risk of suffering very badly from this based on age. No underlying health condition, Under 20, risk is virtually zero. Under 40, still very very low.
... as long as not too many people get it, of course.
3%-7% (dependent on how many actually are asymptomatic) of those in their thirties who get it are so ill as to need hospitalisation. As long as we have capacity there, you should recover (with possibly significant long-term health effects, but you can't have everything).
If you need hospitalisation and don't get it, your prognosis will naturally be somewhat worse. So, as long as we don't have exponential growth (as we stayed within a factor of 2 of overload this time, we locked down with 3-4 days to spare).
So if we let it rip in the "low risk" areas, we'll end up losing quite a few. Looking at the risk conditions, females look to be far less vulnerable than males, so maybe we should only release the restrictions for females.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
The evidence for outdoor transmission is limited, the evidence for child to adult transmission is limited and yet we're still not allowed to interact socially outdoors and schools are still closed.
Someone in government needs to step up and explain all of this to the public in a clear and concise manner, laying out the scientific arguments in favour. In an age when we need a political colossus we have a bunch of pygmys all too scared of their own shadows to make decisions.
In fairness, England and Scotland are far from alone. Most of the planet went insane for a bit there.
It is actually Sweden which is the outlier. I think history is going to prove that ten million of us got this right, and seven billion of you got it wrong. Time will tell.
I think there is a happy medium which Germany seems to have cracked. The Swedish approach seems to sacrifice the medium term in favour of a longer shallower dip while the UK and other national approaches take a larger up front hit in the hope of a full reopening a few months later such as Italy. Germany seems to have the best approach IMO.
Does anyone think that maybe Germany had a bit less of an outbreak? I amazed that the Irag Government does not get more praise. They are next to a country which has had one of the worst outbreaks in the world in Iran with probably well over 100,000 deaths yet Covid-19 has barely touched them Clearly there must be a lot to learn from the way the Irag Governement handled this crisis.
More or Less worth a listen again. Comparison with Germany very interesting, but ran the testing story again. The deception here really is disgraceful.
They picked the 15/5 when 136,000 tests were done but they are not only including posted tests but also non diagnosed tests carried out by Uni and Research Labs (30,000) so useful for other reasons but not tests to determine if people have or don't have Covid. Also 2nd tests are not generally because the previous test needs verifying, but because say the test was dropped on the floor or the testee vomited on the first test. Also a spit and nasal test is counted as two.
Total people tested = 43,000 out of a quoted figure of 136,000
It really is an appalling deception.
I have never heard 'More or Less' get so annoyed in its fact checking.
Again not news.
On the very day the 100,000 test target was announced, they announced five strands of testing including diagnostic and yes non-diagnostic testing etc - someone from the media asked what was meant by the 100,000 and Hancock replied that it was "all tests from all strands".
So that some are non-diagnostic is not news. It was what was said would be counted literally on day one.
A dropped test counts as 2 tests? You are defending the indefensible
Not the dropped test no, that's ridiculous to log that, but the non-diagnostic is what I referred to.
Who's dropping tests though and why are they logging them? I'd doubt that's a high proportion, at least I'd hope not.
It appears that the 2nd tests are because of failures to take the test in the first place largely not because they are going back to retest, but because of vomiting on the test, dropping the test, etc because of the difficulty in taking the test. Also a throat and nasal test is counted as 2 tests! I don't know why some tests are single swabs and some are 2 swabs, but it is still 1 test in my book if the test consists of 2 swabs (nose and throat). The lab might do 2 tests but it is 1 person tested. The number of 2 tests on that day was 26,000 for all reasons.
I disagree, a swab test and a nasal test is 2 tests. It literally is 2 tests - one person, 2 tests.
Would you consider a swab test and a blood test to be just one test?
You’re getting ridiculous with this literal interpretation of everything now. Come on. It doesn’t matter in the big picture if they are “1 test” or “2 tests”, but the implication is that the Government is testing more people than they actually are. Leaving politics aside, it’s better if we’re testing more people. The number of “tests” is irrelevant. The number of people tested is relevant.
Even that isn't really true. It is speed of test / result. It would be much better to do 50k tests a day if everybody got the result within 24hrs, than 100k, with some results taking 4-5 days.
Again, it is why south korea is gold standard, 20k a day, but all done and dusted in a day, some in just an hour or so.
More or Less worth a listen again. Comparison with Germany very interesting, but ran the testing story again. The deception here really is disgraceful.
They picked the 15/5 when 136,000 tests were done but they are not only including posted tests but also non diagnosed tests carried out by Uni and Research Labs (30,000) so useful for other reasons but not tests to determine if people have or don't have Covid. Also 2nd tests are not generally because the previous test needs verifying, but because say the test was dropped on the floor or the testee vomited on the first test. Also a spit and nasal test is counted as two.
Total people tested = 43,000 out of a quoted figure of 136,000
It really is an appalling deception.
I have never heard 'More or Less' get so annoyed in its fact checking.
Again not news.
On the very day the 100,000 test target was announced, they announced five strands of testing including diagnostic and yes non-diagnostic testing etc - someone from the media asked what was meant by the 100,000 and Hancock replied that it was "all tests from all strands".
So that some are non-diagnostic is not news. It was what was said would be counted literally on day one.
A dropped test counts as 2 tests? You are defending the indefensible
Not the dropped test no, that's ridiculous to log that, but the non-diagnostic is what I referred to.
Who's dropping tests though and why are they logging them? I'd doubt that's a high proportion, at least I'd hope not.
It appears that the 2nd tests are because of failures to take the test in the first place largely not because they are going back to retest, but because of vomiting on the test, dropping the test, etc because of the difficulty in taking the test. Also a throat and nasal test is counted as 2 tests! I don't know why some tests are single swabs and some are 2 swabs, but it is still 1 test in my book if the test consists of 2 swabs (nose and throat). The lab might do 2 tests but it is 1 person tested. The number of 2 tests on that day was 26,000 for all reasons.
I disagree, a swab test and a nasal test is 2 tests. It literally is 2 tests - one person, 2 tests.
Would you consider a swab test and a blood test to be just one test?
You’re getting ridiculous with this literal interpretation of everything now. Come on. It doesn’t matter in the big picture if they are “1 test” or “2 tests”, but the implication is that the Government is testing more people than they actually are. Leaving politics aside, it’s better if we’re testing more people. The number of “tests” is irrelevant. The number of people tested is relevant.
I'm not sure on the specificity or sensitivity of the tests but couldn't testing someone twice lead to theoretically more accurate results ?
It’s pretty obvious that the assessment was that the biggest threat from the virus came from an overwhelmed health service. Everything was done in that context (cancelling routine and non emergency hospital treatment and cancellations, clearing the beds, and indeed the lockdown policy itself etc etc). It didn’t help clearly that Care homes fall outside of the jurisdiction of those planning and implementing this policy. Since the health service wasn’t overwhelmed it’s difficult to know if that was ultimately justified.
It may be the case that age and vulnerability is far far more important than ability to access hospital care and most of the approach was therefore misguided.
The point is that they did not know that the health service was not going to be overwhelmed. Imagine if they did not clear hospitals out and then the NHS was overrun. How many retweets would there be from Scott about the Governments failure to protect the NHS?
I wouldn't be surprised if similar post hoc justifications were made for the Maginot Line.
For Conrad fans, It's like Lord Jim - the problem being the ship not sinking.
The Maginot line actually worked - it held up German attacks etc. Some portions of it only surrendered after the main French surrender. Yes - it didn't cover Belgium etc. But it's job was to funnel the attack(s) and to make things much easier for the rest of army.
Any fortification system requires an active army to work with it - just sitting in the bunkers doesn't work. This was known at the time the Line was built and was part of the war plans....
The French army outside the Maginot line got pasted.
Yes, the Maginot Line worked as far as it went but it stopped at the Ardennes.
Belgium from what I recall was a comedy of errors with British, French and Belgian generals flying from base to base for meetings to coordinate defence and counter-attacks but kept missing each other.
Also, can all of those people who said that the app would be fine please stand up. It looks like schools reopening will be delayed by not having it ready in time. The reason it isn't ready is because the government didn't use the Apple/Google solution as everyone said and now the economy is going to take a huge hit for another three weeks. Will Matt Hancock pay the bill for that?
Mrs RP not at work today following yesterday's playground accident. Had a call from the headteacher - they are planning to open up on 1st June as directed, but have consulted with parents about plans.
Expected take-up of the provision for reception, years 1 & 6? 35% at best. So the attacks are bound to switch from feckless workshy teachers to feckless workshy parents.
Its Perfectly Safe to reopen schools. As France has proved.
If lockdown is lifted, “social distancing” has to stop. Basic, sensible hygiene measures: yes. But the idea that you can have venues and activities where social closeness is integral to the very nature of what is going on at the same time as “social distancing” is contradictory nonsense.
Why? It's not a binary on/off switch.
The shape of what's coming, internationally, is, I think, becoming clear. In economic terms, we are going to see neither a 'V' nor a 'U' nor an 'L' shaped recession. Instead, the profile going to be something like an 'L' initially but with the bottom glyph gradually turning upwards in a slow, incremental recovery. It will probably take some years before economies are back to pre-Covid-19 levels, even if a vaccine becomes widely available some time next year..
On a sector level, we are going to see a very mixed picture. Factories will largely re-open, provided they are making things which are still in demand. Offices will partially return to semi-normal with social distancing and other precautions in place, but with many or most workers still working from home. Retail - or the bit of it which survives - is going to run at reduced capacity, with social distancing precautions in place for quite a while. Schools will reopen tentatively. Universities, hotels, restaurants, pubs, theatres, concert halls, airlines, civil aviation manufacturing are completely stuffed. Non-Covid healthcare will stutter back into life but at reduced capacity.
If lockdown is lifted, “social distancing” has to stop. Basic, sensible hygiene measures: yes. But the idea that you can have venues and activities where social closeness is integral to the very nature of what is going on at the same time as “social distancing” is contradictory nonsense.
Why? It's not a binary on/off switch.
The shape of what's coming, internationally, is, I think, becoming clear. In economic terms, we are going to see neither a 'V' nor a 'U' nor an 'L' shaped recession. Instead, the profile going to be something like an 'L' initially but with the bottom glyph gradually turning upwards in a slow, incremental recovery. It will probably take some years before economies are back to pre-Covid-19 levels, even if a vaccine becomes widely available some time next year..
On a sector level, we are going to see a very mixed picture. Factories will largely re-open, provided they are making things which are still in demand. Offices will partially return to semi-normal with social distancing and other precautions in place, but with many or most workers still working from home. Retail - or the bit of it which survives - is going to run at reduced capacity, with social distancing precautions in place for quite a while. Schools will reopen tentatively. Universities, hotels, restaurants, pubs, theatres, concert halls, airlines, civil aviation manufacturing are completely stuffed. Non-Covid healthcare will stutter back into life but at reduced capacity.
If social distancing is maintained as a policy then all forms of social closeness and intimacy and the activities by which humans express and show and enjoy this will effectively be banned or impossible. This is pretty much every form of human activity save for that work which can be done from home or while tooled up in protective gear
This is not an economic issue fundamentally but about how we want to live.
Pretending that lockdown can be lifted and these activities can continue “with social distancing measures” in place is a big fat lie.
A life, a society where can there be no social closeness is unbearable, to me anyway. And a huge overreaction. Societies have lived with contagious and deadly diseases before without closing down everything in sight for months or years on end.
If lockdown is lifted, “social distancing” has to stop. Basic, sensible hygiene measures: yes. But the idea that you can have venues and activities where social closeness is integral to the very nature of what is going on at the same time as “social distancing” is contradictory nonsense.
Why? It's not a binary on/off switch.
The shape of what's coming, internationally, is, I think, becoming clear. In economic terms, we are going to see neither a 'V' nor a 'U' nor an 'L' shaped recession. Instead, the profile going to be something like an 'L' initially but with the bottom glyph gradually turning upwards in a slow, incremental recovery. It will probably take some years before economies are back to pre-Covid-19 levels, even if a vaccine becomes widely available some time next year..
On a sector level, we are going to see a very mixed picture. Factories will largely re-open, provided they are making things which are still in demand. Offices will partially return to semi-normal with social distancing and other precautions in place, but with many or most workers still working from home. Retail - or the bit of it which survives - is going to run at reduced capacity, with social distancing precautions in place for quite a while. Schools will reopen tentatively. Universities, hotels, restaurants, pubs, theatres, concert halls, airlines, civil aviation manufacturing are completely stuffed. Non-Covid healthcare will stutter back into life but at reduced capacity.
I think the recovery will look more like this:
_ \ _____/ | __/ |_/
Ok so that wasn't rendered anything like it was meant to!
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
...
We need to get the death toll down to a trickle and the problems people talking about here largely disappear of their own accord. The governments are getting those numbers down but it's taking longer than it should because of previous and current mistakes. The only way of getting numbers down to a trickle right now is through continued social distancing. There aren't any shortcuts.
That's not true. People under 40 without any health conditions can essentially lead a normal life as long as they limit their contact to that group. Kids also don't give it to adults so schools should be back as long as teachers maintain social distancing measures between themselves and other staff.
There is a huge mental health toll on younger generations that isn't being addressed, kids aren't seeing their friends, teenagers aren't seeing their girlfriends and boyfriends, young adults aren't dating or seeing their friends, loads are sitting at home unemployed or furloughed in misery when it is not clear that they need to be.
It doesn't matter how ageist it looks to let everyone under 40 without health conditions get on with life as normal but that is what needs to happen. The government are too worried about how things will look.
How on earth do you partition the society into those over 40 anfd those under 40? That would also bring a huge toll on younger genertaions. There are a huge number of parents over 40 with children who are not old enough to look after themselves, even before you start to think of the jobs done by over 40s that people under 40 depend on.
So you'd rather have the nation shut down for everyone indefinitely instead of making a few tough decisions for people over 40? Don't forget their kids will still be going to school and seeing their friends everyday.
If lockdown is lifted, “social distancing” has to stop. Basic, sensible hygiene measures: yes. But the idea that you can have venues and activities where social closeness is integral to the very nature of what is going on at the same time as “social distancing” is contradictory nonsense.
Why? It's not a binary on/off switch.
The shape of what's coming, internationally, is, I think, becoming clear. In economic terms, we are going to see neither a 'V' nor a 'U' nor an 'L' shaped recession. Instead, the profile going to be something like an 'L' initially but with the bottom glyph gradually turning upwards in a slow, incremental recovery. It will probably take some years before economies are back to pre-Covid-19 levels, even if a vaccine becomes widely available some time next year..
On a sector level, we are going to see a very mixed picture. Factories will largely re-open, provided they are making things which are still in demand. Offices will partially return to semi-normal with social distancing and other precautions in place, but with many or most workers still working from home. Retail - or the bit of it which survives - is going to run at reduced capacity, with social distancing precautions in place for quite a while. Schools will reopen tentatively. Universities, hotels, restaurants, pubs, theatres, concert halls, airlines, civil aviation manufacturing are completely stuffed. Non-Covid healthcare will stutter back into life but at reduced capacity.
I think the recovery will look more like this:
_ \ _____/ | __/ |_/
Ok so that wasn't rendered anything like it was meant to!
Hydroxychloroquine is used as an anti-malarial is it not ?
It may or may not be effective against Covid, but I don't think it's that dangerous; particularly when you have instant medical care on hand as the president does in case of any side effects.
It can have pretty nasty side effects - if you mix with pre-existing conditions, it could well be lethal, IIRC.
Most ant-malarial drugs are pretty nasty things.
Yepp. I’m never visiting The Gambia again, primarily for that reason. The Yellow Fever jab before, and the anti malaria pills during the holiday completely wiped out the pleasure of the break. I will never again book a holiday in a malaria area.
When I went to a malaria region, I was prescribed a one week tester pack 6 weeks before I left, to see if I got side effects. I did not. My girlfriend did and so was given something else. There are quite a lot of anti-malarials available, and it is unlikely you get sideeffects with all of them.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
...
We need to get the death toll down to a trickle and the problems people talking about here largely disappear of their own accord. The governments are getting those numbers down but it's taking longer than it should because of previous and current mistakes. The only way of getting numbers down to a trickle right now is through continued social distancing. There aren't any shortcuts.
That's not true. People under 40 without any health conditions can essentially lead a normal life as long as they limit their contact to that group. Kids also don't give it to adults so schools should be back as long as teachers maintain social distancing measures between themselves and other staff.
There is a huge mental health toll on younger generations that isn't being addressed, kids aren't seeing their friends, teenagers aren't seeing their girlfriends and boyfriends, young adults aren't dating or seeing their friends, loads are sitting at home unemployed or furloughed in misery when it is not clear that they need to be.
It doesn't matter how ageist it looks to let everyone under 40 without health conditions get on with life as normal but that is what needs to happen. The government are too worried about how things will look.
If it gets the death toll down it doesn't matter how you skin the cat. But those younger people would have to make sure not to infect anyone else who might directly or indirectly infect more vulnerable groups. Difficult to achieve in practice I suspect, but worth investigating.
Mrs RP not at work today following yesterday's playground accident. Had a call from the headteacher - they are planning to open up on 1st June as directed, but have consulted with parents about plans.
Expected take-up of the provision for reception, years 1 & 6? 35% at best. So the attacks are bound to switch from feckless workshy teachers to feckless workshy parents.
Its Perfectly Safe to reopen schools. As France has proved.
More or Less worth a listen again. Comparison with Germany very interesting, but ran the testing story again. The deception here really is disgraceful.
They picked the 15/5 when 136,000 tests were done but they are not only including posted tests but also non diagnosed tests carried out by Uni and Research Labs (30,000) so useful for other reasons but not tests to determine if people have or don't have Covid. Also 2nd tests are not generally because the previous test needs verifying, but because say the test was dropped on the floor or the testee vomited on the first test. Also a spit and nasal test is counted as two.
Total people tested = 43,000 out of a quoted figure of 136,000
It really is an appalling deception.
I have never heard 'More or Less' get so annoyed in its fact checking.
Again not news.
On the very day the 100,000 test target was announced, they announced five strands of testing including diagnostic and yes non-diagnostic testing etc - someone from the media asked what was meant by the 100,000 and Hancock replied that it was "all tests from all strands".
So that some are non-diagnostic is not news. It was what was said would be counted literally on day one.
A dropped test counts as 2 tests? You are defending the indefensible
Not the dropped test no, that's ridiculous to log that, but the non-diagnostic is what I referred to.
Who's dropping tests though and why are they logging them? I'd doubt that's a high proportion, at least I'd hope not.
It appears that the 2nd tests are because of failures to take the test in the first place largely not because they are going back to retest, but because of vomiting on the test, dropping the test, etc because of the difficulty in taking the test. Also a throat and nasal test is counted as 2 tests! I don't know why some tests are single swabs and some are 2 swabs, but it is still 1 test in my book if the test consists of 2 swabs (nose and throat). The lab might do 2 tests but it is 1 person tested. The number of 2 tests on that day was 26,000 for all reasons.
I disagree, a swab test and a nasal test is 2 tests. It literally is 2 tests - one person, 2 tests.
Would you consider a swab test and a blood test to be just one test?
You’re getting ridiculous with this literal interpretation of everything now. Come on. It doesn’t matter in the big picture if they are “1 test” or “2 tests”, but the implication is that the Government is testing more people than they actually are. Leaving politics aside, it’s better if we’re testing more people. The number of “tests” is irrelevant. The number of people tested is relevant.
No you're being ridiculous.
The government announced a target on tests, was asked on day one what it meant by tests (answer was said on day one as all tests) and since then has been reporting on tests. Its also been reporting on numbers of people tested.
So what if some people are counted twice, if they have a clinical requirement for 2 tests then do 2 tests. There's no implication the government is testing more people than they actually are since the number of people tested is publicly announced data. On the Tweet every single day showing the testing data it says in the chart the number of people tested.
If that's an attempt to mislead, its the most barely concealed attempt to do so ever. You're being ridiculous.
If lockdown is lifted, “social distancing” has to stop. Basic, sensible hygiene measures: yes. But the idea that you can have venues and activities where social closeness is integral to the very nature of what is going on at the same time as “social distancing” is contradictory nonsense.
Why? It's not a binary on/off switch.
The shape of what's coming, internationally, is, I think, becoming clear. In economic terms, we are going to see neither a 'V' nor a 'U' nor an 'L' shaped recession. Instead, the profile going to be something like an 'L' initially but with the bottom glyph gradually turning upwards in a slow, incremental recovery. It will probably take some years before economies are back to pre-Covid-19 levels, even if a vaccine becomes widely available some time next year..
On a sector level, we are going to see a very mixed picture. Factories will largely re-open, provided they are making things which are still in demand. Offices will partially return to semi-normal with social distancing and other precautions in place, but with many or most workers still working from home. Retail - or the bit of it which survives - is going to run at reduced capacity, with social distancing precautions in place for quite a while. Schools will reopen tentatively. Universities, hotels, restaurants, pubs, theatres, concert halls, airlines, civil aviation manufacturing are completely stuffed. Non-Covid healthcare will stutter back into life but at reduced capacity.
I think the recovery will look more like this:
_ \ _____/ | __/ |_/
Ok so that wasn't rendered anything like it was meant to!
Could one of the mods have a gentle word with ScottP - last night there was a veritable flood of single tweet posts from him, and today it looks like more of the same. It would be great if he could be encouraged to offer a few words with each retweet to explain how he feels this particular Tweet is pertinent or adds to the debate here. Unlike Twitter, we can't 'unfollow' a user, so treating the comment threads here like Twitter doesn't really work.
Hydroxychloroquine is used as an anti-malarial is it not ?
It may or may not be effective against Covid, but I don't think it's that dangerous; particularly when you have instant medical care on hand as the president does in case of any side effects.
It can have pretty nasty side effects - if you mix with pre-existing conditions, it could well be lethal, IIRC.
Most ant-malarial drugs are pretty nasty things.
Yepp. I’m never visiting The Gambia again, primarily for that reason. The Yellow Fever jab before, and the anti malaria pills during the holiday completely wiped out the pleasure of the break. I will never again book a holiday in a malaria area.
When I went to a malaria region, I was prescribed a one week tester pack 6 weeks before I left, to see if I got side effects. I did not. My girlfriend did and so was given something else. There are quite a lot of anti-malarials available, and it is unlikely you get sideeffects with all of them.
I’m not going back anyway, but worth knowing. Thanks.
You say "The news is so dominated by the pandemic that it is hard for Starmer to get a look in." But PMQs is confined to the pandemic, and there Starmer not only gets a look in but also manifestly triumphs. And PMQs seems to be being reported as news -- at least on the BBC, Sky, Channel 4.
More or Less worth a listen again. Comparison with Germany very interesting, but ran the testing story again. The deception here really is disgraceful.
They picked the 15/5 when 136,000 tests were done but they are not only including posted tests but also non diagnosed tests carried out by Uni and Research Labs (30,000) so useful for other reasons but not tests to determine if people have or don't have Covid. Also 2nd tests are not generally because the previous test needs verifying, but because say the test was dropped on the floor or the testee vomited on the first test. Also a spit and nasal test is counted as two.
Total people tested = 43,000 out of a quoted figure of 136,000
It really is an appalling deception.
I have never heard 'More or Less' get so annoyed in its fact checking.
Again not news.
On the very day the 100,000 test target was announced, they announced five strands of testing including diagnostic and yes non-diagnostic testing etc - someone from the media asked what was meant by the 100,000 and Hancock replied that it was "all tests from all strands".
So that some are non-diagnostic is not news. It was what was said would be counted literally on day one.
A dropped test counts as 2 tests? You are defending the indefensible
Not the dropped test no, that's ridiculous to log that, but the non-diagnostic is what I referred to.
Who's dropping tests though and why are they logging them? I'd doubt that's a high proportion, at least I'd hope not.
It appears that the 2nd tests are because of failures to take the test in the first place largely not because they are going back to retest, but because of vomiting on the test, dropping the test, etc because of the difficulty in taking the test. Also a throat and nasal test is counted as 2 tests! I don't know why some tests are single swabs and some are 2 swabs, but it is still 1 test in my book if the test consists of 2 swabs (nose and throat). The lab might do 2 tests but it is 1 person tested. The number of 2 tests on that day was 26,000 for all reasons.
I disagree, a swab test and a nasal test is 2 tests. It literally is 2 tests - one person, 2 tests.
Would you consider a swab test and a blood test to be just one test?
You’re getting ridiculous with this literal interpretation of everything now. Come on. It doesn’t matter in the big picture if they are “1 test” or “2 tests”, but the implication is that the Government is testing more people than they actually are. Leaving politics aside, it’s better if we’re testing more people. The number of “tests” is irrelevant. The number of people tested is relevant.
I'm not sure on the specificity or sensitivity of the tests but couldn't testing someone twice lead to theoretically more accurate results ?
Not if there is no diagnostic on 1 of the 2 though
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
The evidence for outdoor transmission is limited, the evidence for child to adult transmission is limited and yet we're still not allowed to interact socially outdoors and schools are still closed.
Someone in government needs to step up and explain all of this to the public in a clear and concise manner, laying out the scientific arguments in favour. In an age when we need a political colossus we have a bunch of pygmys all too scared of their own shadows to make decisions.
I know I bang on about my poor mother in a care home - sorry - but I talked to the care home manager yesterday (again). I pressed her on why I can`t see my mother - why is the care home refusing my request for them to load mum in a wheelchair, wheel her outside into the car park and allow us to see her 2 metres away. We can`t allow that, the manager said, the government says no and care home`s are politically hot topic at the moment.
No recognition of the mental health of the residents at all.
Unfortunately what the manager said could just be an easy reply. Perhaps the real reason is "I believe that you will keep 2 metres distance the whole time, but we can't trust everyone to do that, and if we let one guest do that then we have to let all of them do it."
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
...
We need to get the death toll down to a trickle and the problems people talking about here largely disappear of their own accord. The governments are getting those numbers down but it's taking longer than it should because of previous and current mistakes. The only way of getting numbers down to a trickle right now is through continued social distancing. There aren't any shortcuts.
That's not true. People under 40 without any health conditions can essentially lead a normal life as long as they limit their contact to that group. Kids also don't give it to adults so schools should be back as long as teachers maintain social distancing measures between themselves and other staff.
There is a huge mental health toll on younger generations that isn't being addressed, kids aren't seeing their friends, teenagers aren't seeing their girlfriends and boyfriends, young adults aren't dating or seeing their friends, loads are sitting at home unemployed or furloughed in misery when it is not clear that they need to be.
It doesn't matter how ageist it looks to let everyone under 40 without health conditions get on with life as normal but that is what needs to happen. The government are too worried about how things will look.
How on earth do you partition the society into those over 40 anfd those under 40? That would also bring a huge toll on younger genertaions. There are a huge number of parents over 40 with children who are not old enough to look after themselves, even before you start to think of the jobs done by over 40s that people under 40 depend on.
So you'd rather have the nation shut down for everyone indefinitely instead of making a few tough decisions for people over 40? Don't forget their kids will still be going to school and seeing their friends everyday.
My God, Thiokol! When do you want me to launch? Next April?
More or Less worth a listen again. Comparison with Germany very interesting, but ran the testing story again. The deception here really is disgraceful.
They picked the 15/5 when 136,000 tests were done but they are not only including posted tests but also non diagnosed tests carried out by Uni and Research Labs (30,000) so useful for other reasons but not tests to determine if people have or don't have Covid. Also 2nd tests are not generally because the previous test needs verifying, but because say the test was dropped on the floor or the testee vomited on the first test. Also a spit and nasal test is counted as two.
Total people tested = 43,000 out of a quoted figure of 136,000
It really is an appalling deception.
I have never heard 'More or Less' get so annoyed in its fact checking.
Again not news.
On the very day the 100,000 test target was announced, they announced five strands of testing including diagnostic and yes non-diagnostic testing etc - someone from the media asked what was meant by the 100,000 and Hancock replied that it was "all tests from all strands".
So that some are non-diagnostic is not news. It was what was said would be counted literally on day one.
A dropped test counts as 2 tests? You are defending the indefensible
Not the dropped test no, that's ridiculous to log that, but the non-diagnostic is what I referred to.
Who's dropping tests though and why are they logging them? I'd doubt that's a high proportion, at least I'd hope not.
It appears that the 2nd tests are because of failures to take the test in the first place largely not because they are going back to retest, but because of vomiting on the test, dropping the test, etc because of the difficulty in taking the test. Also a throat and nasal test is counted as 2 tests! I don't know why some tests are single swabs and some are 2 swabs, but it is still 1 test in my book if the test consists of 2 swabs (nose and throat). The lab might do 2 tests but it is 1 person tested. The number of 2 tests on that day was 26,000 for all reasons.
I disagree, a swab test and a nasal test is 2 tests. It literally is 2 tests - one person, 2 tests.
Would you consider a swab test and a blood test to be just one test?
You’re getting ridiculous with this literal interpretation of everything now. Come on. It doesn’t matter in the big picture if they are “1 test” or “2 tests”, but the implication is that the Government is testing more people than they actually are. Leaving politics aside, it’s better if we’re testing more people. The number of “tests” is irrelevant. The number of people tested is relevant.
No you're being ridiculous.
The government announced a target on tests, was asked on day one what it meant by tests (answer was said on day one as all tests) and since then has been reporting on tests. Its also been reporting on numbers of people tested.
So what if some people are counted twice, if they have a clinical requirement for 2 tests then do 2 tests. There's no implication the government is testing more people than they actually are since the number of people tested is publicly announced data. On the Tweet every single day showing the testing data it says in the chart the number of people tested.
If that's an attempt to mislead, its the most barely concealed attempt to do so ever. You're being ridiculous.
If you asked a random person on the street in Ashington if they would class being swabbed in the throat and in the nose for COVID-19 as one test, or two, you know what the answer is. Don’t pretend otherwise, it’s unbecoming.
If lockdown is lifted, “social distancing” has to stop. Basic, sensible hygiene measures: yes. But the idea that you can have venues and activities where social closeness is integral to the very nature of what is going on at the same time as “social distancing” is contradictory nonsense.
Why? It's not a binary on/off switch.
The shape of what's coming, internationally, is, I think, becoming clear. In economic terms, we are going to see neither a 'V' nor a 'U' nor an 'L' shaped recession. Instead, the profile going to be something like an 'L' initially but with the bottom glyph gradually turning upwards in a slow, incremental recovery. It will probably take some years before economies are back to pre-Covid-19 levels, even if a vaccine becomes widely available some time next year..
On a sector level, we are going to see a very mixed picture. Factories will largely re-open, provided they are making things which are still in demand. Offices will partially return to semi-normal with social distancing and other precautions in place, but with many or most workers still working from home. Retail - or the bit of it which survives - is going to run at reduced capacity, with social distancing precautions in place for quite a while. Schools will reopen tentatively. Universities, hotels, restaurants, pubs, theatres, concert halls, airlines, civil aviation manufacturing are completely stuffed. Non-Covid healthcare will stutter back into life but at reduced capacity.
If social distancing is maintained as a policy then all forms of social closeness and intimacy and the activities by which humans express and show and enjoy this will effectively be banned or impossible. This is pretty much every form of human activity save for that work which can be done from home or while tooled up in protective gear
This is not an economic issue fundamentally but about how we want to live.
Pretending that lockdown can be lifted and these activities can continue “with social distancing measures” in place is a big fat lie.
A life, a society where can there be no social closeness is unbearable, to me anyway. And a huge overreaction. Societies have lived with contagious and deadly diseases before without closing down everything in sight for months or years on end.
I'd agree.
But the only way things even approach normal is if we get an effective mass track and trace program up and running. That doesn't just mean an app (it's a myth that S Korea relied on this), but rather nationwide trained teams with access to testing which provides results the same day. Without that, large sections of the population (including school children) are going to stay sheltered whatever the government says. And this government appears terrified of public opinion despite its large majority and polling lead.
With it, things might be just about bearable until effective vaccines or treatments are available.
It’s pretty obvious that the assessment was that the biggest threat from the virus came from an overwhelmed health service. Everything was done in that context (cancelling routine and non emergency hospital treatment and cancellations, clearing the beds, and indeed the lockdown policy itself etc etc). It didn’t help clearly that Care homes fall outside of the jurisdiction of those planning and implementing this policy. Since the health service wasn’t overwhelmed it’s difficult to know if that was ultimately justified.
It may be the case that age and vulnerability is far far more important than ability to access hospital care and most of the approach was therefore misguided.
The point is that they did not know that the health service was not going to be overwhelmed. Imagine if they did not clear hospitals out and then the NHS was overrun. How many retweets would there be from Scott about the Governments failure to protect the NHS?
I wouldn't be surprised if similar post hoc justifications were made for the Maginot Line.
For Conrad fans, It's like Lord Jim - the problem being the ship not sinking.
The Maginot line actually worked - it held up German attacks etc. Some portions of it only surrendered after the main French surrender. Yes - it didn't cover Belgium etc. But it's job was to funnel the attack(s) and to make things much easier for the rest of army.
Any fortification system requires an active army to work with it - just sitting in the bunkers doesn't work. This was known at the time the Line was built and was part of the war plans....
The French army outside the Maginot line got pasted.
Yes, the Maginot Line worked as far as it went but it stopped at the Ardennes.
Belgium from what I recall was a comedy of errors with British, French and Belgian generals flying from base to base for meetings to coordinate defence and counter-attacks but kept missing each other.
It was more a case of the French were working a 12+ hour OODA loop. The Germans were working in minutes.
If social distancing is maintained as a policy then all forms of social closeness and intimacy and the activities by which humans express and show and enjoy this will effectively be banned or impossible. This is pretty much every form of human activity save for that work which can be done from home or while tooled up in protective gear
This is not an economic issue fundamentally but about how we want to live.
Pretending that lockdown can be lifted and these activities can continue “with social distancing measures” in place is a big fat lie.
A life, a society where can there be no social closeness is unbearable, to me anyway. And a huge overreaction. Societies have lived with contagious and deadly diseases before without closing down everything in sight for months or years on end.
No-one is pretending anything, or lying on this. Of course it's going to be a horrible mess crawling our way out of this, with the disagreeable consequences you mention. But what's the alternative? If a country doesn't go for a partial restoration of normality, its choices are either complete lockdown or complete letting rip. Neither is conceivable.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
The evidence for outdoor transmission is limited, the evidence for child to adult transmission is limited and yet we're still not allowed to interact socially outdoors and schools are still closed.
Someone in government needs to step up and explain all of this to the public in a clear and concise manner, laying out the scientific arguments in favour. In an age when we need a political colossus we have a bunch of pygmys all too scared of their own shadows to make decisions.
In fairness, England and Scotland are far from alone. Most of the planet went insane for a bit there.
It is actually Sweden which is the outlier. I think history is going to prove that ten million of us got this right, and seven billion of you got it wrong. Time will tell.
I think there is a happy medium which Germany seems to have cracked. The Swedish approach seems to sacrifice the medium term in favour of a longer shallower dip while the UK and other national approaches take a larger up front hit in the hope of a full reopening a few months later such as Italy. Germany seems to have the best approach IMO.
Does anyone think that maybe Germany had a bit less of an outbreak? I amazed that the Irag Government does not get more praise. They are next to a country which has had one of the worst outbreaks in the world in Iran with probably well over 100,000 deaths yet Covid-19 has barely touched them Clearly there must be a lot to learn from the way the Irag Governement handled this crisis.
No, they had the same level of early outbreak as here but they took the right action and had fast decentralised testing to isolate cases. Now they are on the way to fully reopening the economy and benefiting from a possible U or V shaped recovery. Our inability to properly isolate cases early on (or even now) and inability to test people within 24h so they are isolated quickly means we will have social distancing measures in place until a vaccine. The 30m doses order shows where the government has placed it's bet, we just have to hope it pays off. If it does then we will get a U shaped recovery if it doesn't then it will be a long, hard two or three years.
I am not a Unionist.. I have no opinion one way or another, The times wasn't very kind about the sainted Nicola and her handling of Scottish matters. Sooner or later questions will be asked.. and they are starting to be asked.
There seems to be a contradiction here: The outcomes in Scotland versus England seem broadly similar, yet the same people who claim that Boris will have to resign in disgrace for his handling of the epidemic, say Sturgeon has been made stronger.
This does not make sense.
Without commenting either way on the Scottish government’s performance, I note that could easily be reconciled by noting that the lamentable failings in the initial decision-making at a UK-wide level were the responsibility of Boris Johnson.
Health is devolved. The lockdown decisions are devolved. What isn't devolved is external borders, and there, I agree the UK government has fallen short.
Sturgeon had "advanced warning" of the consequences of a super spreader event after the NIKE conference in Edinburgh (as did PHE which were in the loop) - which no doubt will feature prominently in the Inquiry.
One thing she is doing is being "mother of the nation" fronting all the press conferences (which she does well) something Boris conspicuously hasn't (and when he did, didn't do as well).
Faint praise is still praise. And coming from a rampant cyberbritnat like Carlotta it sounds like a megaphone.
Nicola 7 - Boris 0
I don't think anyone has denied that Nicola is a talented politician - I've said it many times.
Also, can all of those people who said that the app would be fine please stand up. It looks like schools reopening will be delayed by not having it ready in time. The reason it isn't ready is because the government didn't use the Apple/Google solution as everyone said and now the economy is going to take a huge hit for another three weeks. Will Matt Hancock pay the bill for that?
I'm no longer convinced that any contact tracing app is worth deploying. Between the general flakiness of using BLE advertisments, the issues with software and hardware compatibility, the lowish level of adoption, and the wrangling about how such apps should operate, I don't have much faith in apps making a significant difference. It's not just the UK, as I've not seen any evidence they've made much difference in any country.
Lots of boots on the ground chasing after symptomatic people and rapid testing is what we need.
Could one of the mods have a gentle word with ScottP - last night there was a veritable flood of single tweet posts from him, and today it looks like more of the same. It would be great if he could be encouraged to offer a few words with each retweet to explain how he feels this particular Tweet is pertinent or adds to the debate here. Unlike Twitter, we can't 'unfollow' a user, so treating the comment threads here like Twitter doesn't really work.
Could one of the mods ban one of my opponents, because I dislike messages which counter my own world view.
More or Less worth a listen again. Comparison with Germany very interesting, but ran the testing story again. The deception here really is disgraceful.
They picked the 15/5 when 136,000 tests were done but they are not only including posted tests but also non diagnosed tests carried out by Uni and Research Labs (30,000) so useful for other reasons but not tests to determine if people have or don't have Covid. Also 2nd tests are not generally because the previous test needs verifying, but because say the test was dropped on the floor or the testee vomited on the first test. Also a spit and nasal test is counted as two.
Total people tested = 43,000 out of a quoted figure of 136,000
It really is an appalling deception.
I have never heard 'More or Less' get so annoyed in its fact checking.
Again not news.
On the very day the 100,000 test target was announced, they announced five strands of testing including diagnostic and yes non-diagnostic testing etc - someone from the media asked what was meant by the 100,000 and Hancock replied that it was "all tests from all strands".
So that some are non-diagnostic is not news. It was what was said would be counted literally on day one.
A dropped test counts as 2 tests? You are defending the indefensible
Not the dropped test no, that's ridiculous to log that, but the non-diagnostic is what I referred to.
Who's dropping tests though and why are they logging them? I'd doubt that's a high proportion, at least I'd hope not.
It appears that the 2nd tests are because of failures to take the test in the first place largely not because they are going back to retest, but because of vomiting on the test, dropping the test, etc because of the difficulty in taking the test. Also a throat and nasal test is counted as 2 tests! I don't know why some tests are single swabs and some are 2 swabs, but it is still 1 test in my book if the test consists of 2 swabs (nose and throat). The lab might do 2 tests but it is 1 person tested. The number of 2 tests on that day was 26,000 for all reasons.
I disagree, a swab test and a nasal test is 2 tests. It literally is 2 tests - one person, 2 tests.
Would you consider a swab test and a blood test to be just one test?
You’re getting ridiculous with this literal interpretation of everything now. Come on. It doesn’t matter in the big picture if they are “1 test” or “2 tests”, but the implication is that the Government is testing more people than they actually are. Leaving politics aside, it’s better if we’re testing more people. The number of “tests” is irrelevant. The number of people tested is relevant.
No you're being ridiculous.
The government announced a target on tests, was asked on day one what it meant by tests (answer was said on day one as all tests) and since then has been reporting on tests. Its also been reporting on numbers of people tested.
So what if some people are counted twice, if they have a clinical requirement for 2 tests then do 2 tests. There's no implication the government is testing more people than they actually are since the number of people tested is publicly announced data. On the Tweet every single day showing the testing data it says in the chart the number of people tested.
If that's an attempt to mislead, its the most barely concealed attempt to do so ever. You're being ridiculous.
If you asked a random person on the street in Ashington if they would class being swabbed in the throat and in the nose for COVID-19 as one test, or two, you know what the answer is. Don’t pretend otherwise, it’s unbecoming.
I should hope the government is using more clinical reporting definitions than "a random person on the street".
The report says number of tests and number of people. You claim it is misleading but how is that misleading if 2 tests on 1 person gets logged twice in the testing column and once in the number of people column?
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
...
We need to get the death toll down to a trickle and the problems people talking about here largely disappear of their own accord. The governments are getting those numbers down but it's taking longer than it should because of previous and current mistakes. The only way of getting numbers down to a trickle right now is through continued social distancing. There aren't any shortcuts.
That's not true. People under 40 without any health conditions can essentially lead a normal life as long as they limit their contact to that group. Kids also don't give it to adults so schools should be back as long as teachers maintain social distancing measures between themselves and other staff...
Actually there is evidence that children can infect others, though apparently at a lower rate.
I think a return to school is a justifiable policy - but only if the track and trace program is up and running to deal with the consequences.
This was reported on Jeremy Vine radio 2 on 8th April. By that stage we knew that Italy had realised, late in the day, that 1,000s were dying in their care homes. I imagine a conscious decision was made that the UK would tacitly accept care home deaths as the price of saving younger lives; where things went wrong was that our hospitals were not overwhelmed and that trade off was never there to be made.
I used to think there was going to be a bloodbath of a public enquiry. I now think some people are going to end up in jail for Johnson's care home Endlösung.
On schools: it's the logistics. I've got a friend who works in one and they're desperately trying to work out how to make it work.
They wish to maintain social distancing as much as practicable. After all, even if kids don't die of this as much (albeit there are, I am reliably informed, children with asthma or diabetes or even other issues that can make them specifically vulnerable), it has been found that the vast majority of them live in households that contain adults.
Some of these adults will be vulnerable. Risk categories include asthma, diabetes, hypertension, age, vitamin D deficiency, and being male. If just 10% of households contain vulnerable adults, then any randomly chosen group of 7 children will have a better than fifty-fifty chance that a vulnerable adult is in close daily contact with at least one of them.
We have found some indications that children might not carry the disease to infect others. Unfortunately, this hasn't been confirmed in any remotely reliable way. It's also difficult to see how you could catch it from touching a parcel (confirmed) but not from touching a child's skin or clothes. After all, they are indeed mobile surfaces that interact with others.
So - social distancing. Maximum of 10 children per class to have any chance of this. Most schools don't have anywhere near enough classrooms to cope with even a half of their normal capacity while maintaining social distancing. Children to stay in that single bubble and not mingle. They have to go to the loo at specified times to be escorted and controlled in their group. Sectioned-off areas of the playground. No sharing anything. No playing games in close contact. No hugging friends. So many restrictions that the teachers may not have the opportunity to, you know, teach anything.
Children have been looking on a return to school and their friends as a source of hope. They traipse in, and cannot come close to their friends, have to stay in their "bubble" (even if their best friends are in another one", are in the wrong classroom with weird restrictions, probably with the wrong teacher, who's wearing mask and gloves.
Yeah, this will work well, won't it?
I have been thinking all of the above, thanks for expressing so eloquently.
If lockdown is lifted, “social distancing” has to stop. Basic, sensible hygiene measures: yes. But the idea that you can have venues and activities where social closeness is integral to the very nature of what is going on at the same time as “social distancing” is contradictory nonsense.
Seems crazy that we are in lockdown at a time when things like pubs, restaurants and schools could do a lot of stuff outdoors and will be out of lockdown by winter when we are all crowded inside
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
...
We need to get the death toll down to a trickle and the problems people talking about here largely disappear of their own accord. The governments are getting those numbers down but it's taking longer than it should because of previous and current mistakes. The only way of getting numbers down to a trickle right now is through continued social distancing. There aren't any shortcuts.
That's not true. People under 40 without any health conditions can essentially lead a normal life as long as they limit their contact to that group. Kids also don't give it to adults so schools should be back as long as teachers maintain social distancing measures between themselves and other staff.
There is a huge mental health toll on younger generations that isn't being addressed, kids aren't seeing their friends, teenagers aren't seeing their girlfriends and boyfriends, young adults aren't dating or seeing their friends, loads are sitting at home unemployed or furloughed in misery when it is not clear that they need to be.
It doesn't matter how ageist it looks to let everyone under 40 without health conditions get on with life as normal but that is what needs to happen. The government are too worried about how things will look.
How on earth do you partition the society into those over 40 anfd those under 40? That would also bring a huge toll on younger genertaions. There are a huge number of parents over 40 with children who are not old enough to look after themselves, even before you start to think of the jobs done by over 40s that people under 40 depend on.
So you'd rather have the nation shut down for everyone indefinitely instead of making a few tough decisions for people over 40? Don't forget their kids will still be going to school and seeing their friends everyday.
I have never written I'd "rather have the nation shut down for everyone indefinitely " that is just rediculous. It is almost as rediculous as the idea that under 40s and over 40s can be completely partitioned.
What is a family with two parents aged 42 and 45 to do with their two kids aged 5 and 10? Does your wife have to move out because you are 45 and she is 38? Do you make one train/bus for the over 40s and one for the under 40s.... how do you organise shops?
More or Less worth a listen again. Comparison with Germany very interesting, but ran the testing story again. The deception here really is disgraceful.
They picked the 15/5 when 136,000 tests were done but they are not only including posted tests but also non diagnosed tests carried out by Uni and Research Labs (30,000) so useful for other reasons but not tests to determine if people have or don't have Covid. Also 2nd tests are not generally because the previous test needs verifying, but because say the test was dropped on the floor or the testee vomited on the first test. Also a spit and nasal test is counted as two.
Total people tested = 43,000 out of a quoted figure of 136,000
It really is an appalling deception.
I have never heard 'More or Less' get so annoyed in its fact checking.
Again not news.
On the very day the 100,000 test target was announced, they announced five strands of testing including diagnostic and yes non-diagnostic testing etc - someone from the media asked what was meant by the 100,000 and Hancock replied that it was "all tests from all strands".
So that some are non-diagnostic is not news. It was what was said would be counted literally on day one.
A dropped test counts as 2 tests? You are defending the indefensible
Not the dropped test no, that's ridiculous to log that, but the non-diagnostic is what I referred to.
Who's dropping tests though and why are they logging them? I'd doubt that's a high proportion, at least I'd hope not.
It appears that the 2nd tests are because of failures to take the test in the first place largely not because they are going back to retest, but because of vomiting on the test, dropping the test, etc because of the difficulty in taking the test. Also a throat and nasal test is counted as 2 tests! I don't know why some tests are single swabs and some are 2 swabs, but it is still 1 test in my book if the test consists of 2 swabs (nose and throat). The lab might do 2 tests but it is 1 person tested. The number of 2 tests on that day was 26,000 for all reasons.
I disagree, a swab test and a nasal test is 2 tests. It literally is 2 tests - one person, 2 tests.
Would you consider a swab test and a blood test to be just one test?
You’re getting ridiculous with this literal interpretation of everything now. Come on. It doesn’t matter in the big picture if they are “1 test” or “2 tests”, but the implication is that the Government is testing more people than they actually are. Leaving politics aside, it’s better if we’re testing more people. The number of “tests” is irrelevant. The number of people tested is relevant.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
...
We need to get the death toll down to a trickle and the problems people talking about here largely disappear of their own accord. The governments are getting those numbers down but it's taking longer than it should because of previous and current mistakes. The only way of getting numbers down to a trickle right now is through continued social distancing. There aren't any shortcuts.
That's not true. People under 40 without any health conditions can essentially lead a normal life as long as they limit their contact to that group. Kids also don't give it to adults so schools should be back as long as teachers maintain social distancing measures between themselves and other staff...
Actually there is evidence that children can infect others, though apparently at a lower rate.
I think a return to school is a justifiable policy - but only if the track and trace program is up and running to deal with the consequences.
Maybe, but what we need is evidence based policy now. We have proper evidence now of outdoor and children to adult transmission, we're not in the dark anymore basing things on suspect data from China. When the evidence changes so should our policies, but our politicians are too scared.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
...
We need to get the death toll down to a trickle and the problems people talking about here largely disappear of their own accord. The governments are getting those numbers down but it's taking longer than it should because of previous and current mistakes. The only way of getting numbers down to a trickle right now is through continued social distancing. There aren't any shortcuts.
That's not true. People under 40 without any health conditions can essentially lead a normal life as long as they limit their contact to that group. Kids also don't give it to adults so schools should be back as long as teachers maintain social distancing measures between themselves and other staff.
There is a huge mental health toll on younger generations that isn't being addressed, kids aren't seeing their friends, teenagers aren't seeing their girlfriends and boyfriends, young adults aren't dating or seeing their friends, loads are sitting at home unemployed or furloughed in misery when it is not clear that they need to be.
It doesn't matter how ageist it looks to let everyone under 40 without health conditions get on with life as normal but that is what needs to happen. The government are too worried about how things will look.
If it gets the death toll down it doesn't matter how you skin the cat. But those younger people would have to make sure not to infect anyone else who might directly or indirectly infect more vulnerable groups. Difficult to achieve in practice I suspect, but worth investigating.
Lockdown and social distancing are both pretty crude ways to control a virus. If you have infection numbers going through the roof and not enough testing and no tracking, you don't have much choice. Cocooning the vulnerable looks attractive, but nobody has managed to reliably cocoon enough to give protection.
Once the infection numbers are low enough, then it looks like Swedish behaviour is roughly enough to keep them stable.
So the judgement call is when are infections "low enough"? Zero is unrealistic, but low enough to test and track reliable ought to be doable. Shouldn't it?
Could one of the mods have a gentle word with ScottP - last night there was a veritable flood of single tweet posts from him, and today it looks like more of the same. It would be great if he could be encouraged to offer a few words with each retweet to explain how he feels this particular Tweet is pertinent or adds to the debate here. Unlike Twitter, we can't 'unfollow' a user, so treating the comment threads here like Twitter doesn't really work.
Could one of the mods ban one of my opponents, because I dislike messages which counter my own world view.
There, sorted that for you.
Its another irregular verb -
I repost valuable information You are off topic He is a spammer
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
...
We need to get the death toll down to a trickle and the problems people talking about here largely disappear of their own accord. The governments are getting those numbers down but it's taking longer than it should because of previous and current mistakes. The only way of getting numbers down to a trickle right now is through continued social distancing. There aren't any shortcuts.
That's not true. People under 40 without any health conditions can essentially lead a normal life as long as they limit their contact to that group. Kids also don't give it to adults so schools should be back as long as teachers maintain social distancing measures between themselves and other staff.
There is a huge mental health toll on younger generations that isn't being addressed, kids aren't seeing their friends, teenagers aren't seeing their girlfriends and boyfriends, young adults aren't dating or seeing their friends, loads are sitting at home unemployed or furloughed in misery when it is not clear that they need to be.
It doesn't matter how ageist it looks to let everyone under 40 without health conditions get on with life as normal but that is what needs to happen. The government are too worried about how things will look.
How on earth do you partition the society into those over 40 anfd those under 40? That would also bring a huge toll on younger genertaions. There are a huge number of parents over 40 with children who are not old enough to look after themselves, even before you start to think of the jobs done by over 40s that people under 40 depend on.
So you'd rather have the nation shut down for everyone indefinitely instead of making a few tough decisions for people over 40? Don't forget their kids will still be going to school and seeing their friends everyday.
How about we squash the virus so that it is either eliminated altogether (like New Zealand) or down at containable levels? That way then everyone can get back to normalish while taking sensible precautions and using track, trace and isolation for those who do get the virus or get exposed and quarantining at the borders to stop it reentering the nation.
I am not a Unionist.. I have no opinion one way or another, The times wasn't very kind about the sainted Nicola and her handling of Scottish matters. Sooner or later questions will be asked.. and they are starting to be asked.
There seems to be a contradiction here: The outcomes in Scotland versus England seem broadly similar, yet the same people who claim that Boris will have to resign in disgrace for his handling of the epidemic, say Sturgeon has been made stronger.
This does not make sense.
Without commenting either way on the Scottish government’s performance, I note that could easily be reconciled by noting that the lamentable failings in the initial decision-making at a UK-wide level were the responsibility of Boris Johnson.
Health is devolved. The lockdown decisions are devolved. What isn't devolved is external borders, and there, I agree the UK government has fallen short.
Sturgeon had "advanced warning" of the consequences of a super spreader event after the NIKE conference in Edinburgh (as did PHE which were in the loop) - which no doubt will feature prominently in the Inquiry.
One thing she is doing is being "mother of the nation" fronting all the press conferences (which she does well) something Boris conspicuously hasn't (and when he did, didn't do as well).
Faint praise is still praise. And coming from a rampant cyberbritnat like Carlotta it sounds like a megaphone.
Nicola 7 - Boris 0
I don't think anyone has denied that Nicola is a talented politician - I've said it many times.
Really? Weren't you sneering about how unlikely it was that a diddy politician like Sturgeon from a diddy country like Scotland would be offered a UN post? If I misread your tone or the point you were attempting to make, apologies.
More or Less worth a listen again. Comparison with Germany very interesting, but ran the testing story again. The deception here really is disgraceful.
They picked the 15/5 when 136,000 tests were done but they are not only including posted tests but also non diagnosed tests carried out by Uni and Research Labs (30,000) so useful for other reasons but not tests to determine if people have or don't have Covid. Also 2nd tests are not generally because the previous test needs verifying, but because say the test was dropped on the floor or the testee vomited on the first test. Also a spit and nasal test is counted as two.
Total people tested = 43,000 out of a quoted figure of 136,000
It really is an appalling deception.
I have never heard 'More or Less' get so annoyed in its fact checking.
Again not news.
On the very day the 100,000 test target was announced, they announced five strands of testing including diagnostic and yes non-diagnostic testing etc - someone from the media asked what was meant by the 100,000 and Hancock replied that it was "all tests from all strands".
So that some are non-diagnostic is not news. It was what was said would be counted literally on day one.
A dropped test counts as 2 tests? You are defending the indefensible
Not the dropped test no, that's ridiculous to log that, but the non-diagnostic is what I referred to.
Who's dropping tests though and why are they logging them? I'd doubt that's a high proportion, at least I'd hope not.
It appears that the 2nd tests are because of failures to take the test in the first place largely not because they are going back to retest, but because of vomiting on the test, dropping the test, etc because of the difficulty in taking the test. Also a throat and nasal test is counted as 2 tests! I don't know why some tests are single swabs and some are 2 swabs, but it is still 1 test in my book if the test consists of 2 swabs (nose and throat). The lab might do 2 tests but it is 1 person tested. The number of 2 tests on that day was 26,000 for all reasons.
I disagree, a swab test and a nasal test is 2 tests. It literally is 2 tests - one person, 2 tests.
Would you consider a swab test and a blood test to be just one test?
You’re getting ridiculous with this literal interpretation of everything now. Come on. It doesn’t matter in the big picture if they are “1 test” or “2 tests”, but the implication is that the Government is testing more people than they actually are. Leaving politics aside, it’s better if we’re testing more people. The number of “tests” is irrelevant. The number of people tested is relevant.
No you're being ridiculous.
The government announced a target on tests, was asked on day one what it meant by tests (answer was said on day one as all tests) and since then has been reporting on tests. Its also been reporting on numbers of people tested.
So what if some people are counted twice, if they have a clinical requirement for 2 tests then do 2 tests. There's no implication the government is testing more people than they actually are since the number of people tested is publicly announced data. On the Tweet every single day showing the testing data it says in the chart the number of people tested.
If that's an attempt to mislead, its the most barely concealed attempt to do so ever. You're being ridiculous.
If you asked a random person on the street in Ashington if they would class being swabbed in the throat and in the nose for COVID-19 as one test, or two, you know what the answer is. Don’t pretend otherwise, it’s unbecoming.
I should hope the government is using more clinical reporting definitions than "a random person on the street".
The report says number of tests and number of people. You claim it is misleading but how is that misleading if 2 tests on 1 person gets logged twice in the testing column and once in the number of people column?
When you say “the Government is conducting 100,000 tests a day” the takeaway for almost everyone is “the Government is testing 100,000 people a day”. Not, “the Government is testing 25,000 people a day four times, 2 x in the nose, 2 x in the mouth.
What you’re saying is technically correct, but it is still misleading to the populace. You cannot dispute that because it is.
Swedish schools (for under 16s) have been open throughout. It is a non-issue.
The problem with closing things is not the initial closure, but the much more difficult re-opening. It is a bit like the classic equity market problem: yes, of course it is fantastic to sell at or near the top, but you also need to buy at or near the bottom. In other words, you need to get it right *twice*, which is bloody hard, which is why most intelligent folks just shrug their shoulders and stay in.
The mental health repercussions of disrupted education and social life for the young, in combination with mass unemployment, could well outweigh the benefits of lockdown. We’ll have a better idea of that when we have the perspective of hindsight.
Very much agree with this, the country has basically gone insane, aided and abetted by politicians.
...
We need to get the death toll down to a trickle and the problems people talking about here largely disappear of their own accord. The governments are getting those numbers down but it's taking longer than it should because of previous and current mistakes. The only way of getting numbers down to a trickle right now is through continued social distancing. There aren't any shortcuts.
That's not true. People under 40 without any health conditions can essentially lead a normal life as long as they limit their contact to that group. Kids also don't give it to adults so schools should be back as long as teachers maintain social distancing measures between themselves and other staff.
There is a huge mental health toll on younger generations that isn't being addressed, kids aren't seeing their friends, teenagers aren't seeing their girlfriends and boyfriends, young adults aren't dating or seeing their friends, loads are sitting at home unemployed or furloughed in misery when it is not clear that they need to be.
It doesn't matter how ageist it looks to let everyone under 40 without health conditions get on with life as normal but that is what needs to happen. The government are too worried about how things will look.
How on earth do you partition the society into those over 40 anfd those under 40? That would also bring a huge toll on younger genertaions. There are a huge number of parents over 40 with children who are not old enough to look after themselves, even before you start to think of the jobs done by over 40s that people under 40 depend on.
So you'd rather have the nation shut down for everyone indefinitely instead of making a few tough decisions for people over 40? Don't forget their kids will still be going to school and seeing their friends everyday.
I have never written I'd "rather have the nation shut down for everyone indefinitely " that is just rediculous. It is almost as rediculous as the idea that under 40s and over 40s can be completely partitioned.
What is a family with two parents aged 42 and 45 to do with their two kids aged 5 and 10? Does your wife have to move out because you are 45 and she is 38? Do you make one train/bus for the over 40s and one for the under 40s.... how do you organise shops?
People can use their own heads? If there is someone in the household over 40 then it stays in the social distancing measures, if not then life goes back to normal.
Could one of the mods have a gentle word with ScottP - last night there was a veritable flood of single tweet posts from him, and today it looks like more of the same. It would be great if he could be encouraged to offer a few words with each retweet to explain how he feels this particular Tweet is pertinent or adds to the debate here. Unlike Twitter, we can't 'unfollow' a user, so treating the comment threads here like Twitter doesn't really work.
Could one of the mods ban one of my opponents, because I dislike messages which counter my own world view.
There, sorted that for you.
Oh do me a favour. Quite clearly I haven't asked for anyone to be banned. Furthermore, If I wanted to ban people expressing messages which counter my own world view, I'd be asking for the whole site to be banned. And debate here would be very boring.
I am asking for someone to be encouraged to make more of a contribution than being the site spambot. I would like to think that if anyone from the Brexiteer contingent treated the site the same, I'd feel the same. Can't test that theory because there isn't anyone.
Comments
Who's dropping tests though and why are they logging them? I'd doubt that's a high proportion, at least I'd hope not.
Discharging a patient with a highly infectious virus into a home with other vulnerable patients is a dereliction of duty by the NHS. It is also a dereliction of duty doing so when you don’t know whether they have this disease in the middle of an epidemic and don’t bother to find out. A policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is simply unacceptable in the middle of an an epidemic. If an elderly person had some other infectious disease would they be discharged from hospital? No. So why treat this virus differently when the whole purpose of lockdown was - allegedly - to protect the most vulnerable.
The only circumstances in which it might make sense would be if the care home were given all the necessary PPE equipment, staff and training to minimise exposure so that they could care for this patient like a hospital. But they weren’t and care homes are not hospitals in any case.
In the long run Boris will be fortunate and brave if can overcome this one. At the moment the communication skills of government is much worse than I would have expected.
The evidence for outdoor transmission is limited, the evidence for child to adult transmission is limited and yet we're still not allowed to interact socially outdoors and schools are still closed.
Someone in government needs to step up and explain all of this to the public in a clear and concise manner, laying out the scientific arguments in favour. In an age when we need a political colossus we have a bunch of pygmys all too scared of their own shadows to make decisions.
Reduces cost, widens access, more relevant to need.
Care homes need PPE and barrier nursing even with a negative test.
Sturgeon had "advanced warning" of the consequences of a super spreader event after the NIKE conference in Edinburgh (as did PHE which were in the loop) - which no doubt will feature prominently in the Inquiry.
One thing she is doing is being "mother of the nation" fronting all the press conferences (which she does well) something Boris conspicuously hasn't (and when he did, didn't do as well).
"Boris Johnson looked pale and thin today" (Mail)
Choose your poison.
If you were actually paying 30% of salary into a scheme for 40 years, you would surely end up with a pension of well over 100% your final salary.
He executed messengers who brought him bad news, so nobody was willing to tell him the Romans had arrived.
So, for some people, send the kids back to school is an unreasonable risk - the online teaching is working fine, they have domestic arrangements that mean home schooling is working. They might even be finding that it is nicer to have the kids at home - take a break from WFH, and see them....
Equally, for some people, it is hell - the children are miserable* without their friends & social interaction, there's no space at home, the school is 100% shut.
It is the unusual pattern of these different experiences that is worth thinking about.
It is not on the classic lines of wealth - but there is a similar element of walk-a-mile-in-others-shoes.
*Not just upset - but in some cases having serious problems.
I think there massive misconception about who is suffering based on media reporting, often highlighting the tragic case of the odd individual, who isn't the majority i.e. old, overweight, underlying health condition.
Even oldies, we are talking about 10-15% mortality rate, which is very very high, but it is still 9 out of 10 oldies surviving. But lots of cancers, we are talking higher than that. I think a lot of people think every 70-80 year old getting this is dying.
In normal times either these exceptional cases aren't reported or prefaced with the reporting this because it is so exceptional
It may or may not be effective against Covid, but I don't think it's that dangerous; particularly when you have instant medical care on hand as the president does in case of any side effects.
• This represents the single greatest failure of devolved government since the creation of the Scottish Parliament.
• Decisive action might have helped reduce the risk and would have prevented deaths
• Scotland has a regulatory framework which puts private ownership and private financial interests before care and there are no effective mechanisms for improving standards of care in failing Care Homes. 'Partnership working' (cooperation with private companies) comes before standards.
• Few Care Homes have the health skills necessary to prevent Covid spread, exacerbated by a recruitment crisis resulting from low pay in the sector
• The privatisation of the care sector is clearly not in the public interest.
• For two months the Scottish Government was simply in denial about what was happening in Care Homes.
https://commonweal.scot/policy-library/predictable-crisis
When I went to Uni in the 90s, there were already a fair chunk of the class who were mature students - their stories were remarkably similar. Pushed into doing subjects that they weren't keen on, they dropped out previously....
Some people are ready at 18. Some people would benefit from doing something else first. Almost as if the human condition varies or something.
Fit the education to the person.
Secondly, Care Homes should be able to support barrier nursing of infected patients - clearly many/most can't. I think the 4 NHS's assumed they could. For a review of Care Homes in Scotland see:
https://commonweal.scot/policy-library/predictable-crisis
Most ant-malarial drugs are pretty nasty things.
It is actually Sweden which is the outlier. I think history is going to prove that ten million of us got this right, and seven billion of you got it wrong. Time will tell.
The shape of what's coming, internationally, is, I think, becoming clear. In economic terms, we are going to see neither a 'V' nor a 'U' nor an 'L' shaped recession. Instead, the profile going to be something like an 'L' initially but with the bottom glyph gradually turning upwards in a slow, incremental recovery. It will probably take some years before economies are back to pre-Covid-19 levels, even if a vaccine becomes widely available some time next year..
On a sector level, we are going to see a very mixed picture. Factories will largely re-open, provided they are making things which are still in demand. Offices will partially return to semi-normal with social distancing and other precautions in place, but with many or most workers still working from home. Retail - or the bit of it which survives - is going to run at reduced capacity, with social distancing precautions in place for quite a while. Schools will reopen tentatively. Universities, hotels, restaurants, pubs, theatres, concert halls, airlines, civil aviation manufacturing are completely stuffed. Non-Covid healthcare will stutter back into life but at reduced capacity.
severe mood or mental changes
feeling that others can hear your thoughts
feeling, seeing, or hearing things that are not there
unusual behaviour
yellow eyes or skin
So, how would they notice?
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/hydroxychloroquine-oral-route/side-effects/drg-20064216
No recognition of the mental health of the residents at all.
The next big scandal/crisis will involve equity release schemes, that could get very nasty
Nicola 7 - Boris 0
This meant that medical treatments which could have been delivered in Care Homes (such as the provision of oxygen) were not supported by the Scottish Government which left treatment to the discretion of private companies geared around property finance. In addition the nature of the deaths of Care Home residents was not taken to be a government responsibility and so the use of palliative measures (to make deaths as comfortable as possible) was also left to Providers. This almost certainly means many old people faced an absolutely unnecessarily uncomfortable and painful death. Health staff were not instructed to take the clinical lead in Care Homes until 17 May.
https://commonweal.scot/policy-library/predictable-crisis
Any fortification system requires an active army to work with it - just sitting in the bunkers doesn't work. This was known at the time the Line was built and was part of the war plans....
The French army outside the Maginot line got pasted.
And in the end is all about getting the death toll down. Everything follows from that
There is a huge mental health toll on younger generations that isn't being addressed, kids aren't seeing their friends, teenagers aren't seeing their girlfriends and boyfriends, young adults aren't dating or seeing their friends, loads are sitting at home unemployed or furloughed in misery when it is not clear that they need to be.
It doesn't matter how ageist it looks to let everyone under 40 without health conditions get on with life as normal but that is what needs to happen. The government are too worried about how things will look.
Would you consider a swab test and a blood test to be just one test?
Presenter Louise Minchin said that in fact there was "not a single day" when more than 100,000 people had received tests, and asked him if claims like these undermined trust.
Mr Buckland said the government needed to be "straightforward", adding that where there had been difficulties "everybody has known about it".
He also acknowledged that the planned contact tracing system and app were "still very much work in progress" and might not be "full-blown" by the time schools are due to open on 1 June.
Mr Buckland said the government needed to "listen very carefully" to schools concerned about readmitting more children and acknowledged that there may not be a "uniform" return to teaching
That would also bring a huge toll on younger genertaions.
There are a huge number of parents over 40 with children who are not old enough to look after themselves, even before you start to think of the jobs done by over 40s that people under 40 depend on.
3%-7% (dependent on how many actually are asymptomatic) of those in their thirties who get it are so ill as to need hospitalisation. As long as we have capacity there, you should recover (with possibly significant long-term health effects, but you can't have everything).
If you need hospitalisation and don't get it, your prognosis will naturally be somewhat worse. So, as long as we don't have exponential growth (as we stayed within a factor of 2 of overload this time, we locked down with 3-4 days to spare).
So if we let it rip in the "low risk" areas, we'll end up losing quite a few. Looking at the risk conditions, females look to be far less vulnerable than males, so maybe we should only release the restrictions for females.
Again, it is why south korea is gold standard, 20k a day, but all done and dusted in a day, some in just an hour or so.
Belgium from what I recall was a comedy of errors with British, French and Belgian generals flying from base to base for meetings to coordinate defence and counter-attacks but kept missing each other.
Expected take-up of the provision for reception, years 1 & 6? 35% at best. So the attacks are bound to switch from feckless workshy teachers to feckless workshy parents.
Its Perfectly Safe to reopen schools. As France has proved.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coronavirus-france-school-cases-reopen-lockdown-a9520386.html?fbclid=IwAR3iX-Zd5AGRC4oLaisyV0j6JnZ-siBTOz15immkr3PCcnE9uKxLhtYqU2o
_
\ _____/
| __/
|_/
This is not an economic issue fundamentally but about how we want to live.
Pretending that lockdown can be lifted and these activities can continue “with social distancing measures” in place is a big fat lie.
A life, a society where can there be no social closeness is unbearable, to me anyway. And a huge overreaction. Societies have lived with contagious and deadly diseases before without closing down everything in sight for months or years on end.
The government announced a target on tests, was asked on day one what it meant by tests (answer was said on day one as all tests) and since then has been reporting on tests. Its also been reporting on numbers of people tested.
So what if some people are counted twice, if they have a clinical requirement for 2 tests then do 2 tests. There's no implication the government is testing more people than they actually are since the number of people tested is publicly announced data. On the Tweet every single day showing the testing data it says in the chart the number of people tested.
If that's an attempt to mislead, its the most barely concealed attempt to do so ever. You're being ridiculous.
"I believe that you will keep 2 metres distance the whole time, but we can't trust everyone to do that, and if we let one guest do that then we have to let all of them do it."
But the only way things even approach normal is if we get an effective mass track and trace program up and running. That doesn't just mean an app (it's a myth that S Korea relied on this), but rather nationwide trained teams with access to testing which provides results the same day.
Without that, large sections of the population (including school children) are going to stay sheltered whatever the government says. And this government appears terrified of public opinion despite its large majority and polling lead.
With it, things might be just about bearable until effective vaccines or treatments are available.
Lots of boots on the ground chasing after symptomatic people and rapid testing is what we need.
There, sorted that for you.
The report says number of tests and number of people. You claim it is misleading but how is that misleading if 2 tests on 1 person gets logged twice in the testing column and once in the number of people column?
I think a return to school is a justifiable policy - but only if the track and trace program is up and running to deal with the consequences.
What is a family with two parents aged 42 and 45 to do with their two kids aged 5 and 10?
Does your wife have to move out because you are 45 and she is 38?
Do you make one train/bus for the over 40s and one for the under 40s.... how do you organise shops?
Once the infection numbers are low enough, then it looks like Swedish behaviour is roughly enough to keep them stable.
So the judgement call is when are infections "low enough"? Zero is unrealistic, but low enough to test and track reliable ought to be doable. Shouldn't it?
I repost valuable information
You are off topic
He is a spammer
Why does there have to be a generational divide?
What you’re saying is technically correct, but it is still misleading to the populace. You cannot dispute that because it is.
I am asking for someone to be encouraged to make more of a contribution than being the site spambot. I would like to think that if anyone from the Brexiteer contingent treated the site the same, I'd feel the same. Can't test that theory because there isn't anyone.
(edited for rudeness!)