The Covid-19 serious chat thread

[RDW]

First topic message reminder :

A thread set up to house the more serious chat relating to the global pandemic.

Nothing has changed in what we expect from discussions on here though:

- Please treat each other with respect
- Avoid hyperbole and fake news
- This thread shouldn't be used for a political soapbox, but political discussion will likely happen. See point 1!

A reminder that we have a community thread here for people to vent, look for help and all round support each other. https://www.606v2.com/t69506-the-covid-19-community-thread#3896653

[guildfordbat]

These are the five conditions:

1. “We must protect the NHS’s (National Health Service) ability to cope. We must be confident that we are able to provide sufficient critical care and specialist treatment right across the UK.”

2. “We need to see a sustained and consistent fall in the daily death rates from coronavirus so we are confident that we’ve moved beyond the peak.”

3. “We need to have reliable data from SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) showing that the rate of infection is decreasing to manageable levels across the board.”

4. “We need to be confident that the range of operational challenges, including testing capacity and PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), are in hand, with supply able to meet future demand.”

5. “This is really crucial: we must be confident that any adjustments to the current measures will not risk a second peak of infections that overwhelms the NHS.

I think they're, generally speaking, pretty sound. It's good they have left room to fudge. It allows them to adapt and manoeuvre as we learn more about the disease. If they set very rigid conditions at this stage in the game and they were fulfilled then it could undermine public confidence to then maintain the lockdown if need be.
This may be ignorance talking but unless we can get the numbers down to next to nothing there's very little we can do to stop a second wave. I suppose if we manage to get it right back down the government can actually implement the test, trace and isolate plan that the Germans managed in the first place.

Numbers - thanks for putting the five conditions up.

I'm not automatically dismissive of your points but do think what (also) threatens to undermine public confidence now is the Government's total unwillingness to share in any way what a partial easing of the lockdown might look like. This suggests - to me at least - that Raab and the rest of the Cabinet are unprepared for the next phase and so will resist attempts for us to go there in anything other than a very minimal way. The subjective nature of satisfying these conditions allows them that and perhaps too much so. I'm probably more unhappy with those currently making or ducking decisions (including some of the medical suits I've heard) than the conditions.

Preparedness for the next phase (which is different from entering the next phase) and sensible communication of what is on the table should be a high priority. I doubt that will change until Boris returns to the helm. For his faults, Boris has a connection with many of the public (albeit not much on this forum) and is likely to recognise that we have very largely adhered to the lockdown and so should be trusted with knowing what may follow.

[123456789.]

I'd agree on that. I do think one of the failings the government made was to underestimate the understanding of the British people. The fear of 'Lockdown fatigure' meant the government delayed implementation later than it should have done and thousands have paid with their lives. The reality is that the vast majority of people in this country and across the world have shown they are prepared to do whatever it takes to fight off this disease. It's a tale as old of time, that when the body politic's back is up against the wall, overwhelmingly, people dig in. That's the Blitz spirit that we've spoken about in this country, and while the spirit of the Blitz was a remarkable show of resolve it was not one driven by an intrinsic 'Britishness', the people of Germany showed a similar steel under bombardment. It's simply human nature. In a similar way the government feared fatigue, I think there could be a fear that if they set specific conditions for a well-defined next step individuals may, unilaterally decide that those conditions have been met and move to the next step as a consequence. I think there is a latent, insidious risk from doing the opposite. That if the next step is not clearly defined and set out, that the trickle may become the flood. Indeed if the spirit of the Blitz showed the strength of human resolve then the Berlin Wall showed a different, fundamental characteristic - that if you offer an inch of freedom then people will take a mile. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred that's a positive impulse, one that has expedited the overthrow of dictators the world over. On this condition it seems sensible for the government to stress that the end of the lockdown will not represent, to return to the language of the Second World War, the end, nor even the beginning of the end but perhaps the end of the beginning.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

I see that the figures coming from china are showing that they grossly miscalculate the death toll in Wuhan. As most Western governments based their initial response on the way the Chinese managed that area and it was thought that they had done quite a good job of containment. Do we think that if we had known that the deaths were actually 50% higher than reported and in all honesty probably a lot higher than that bearing the way China treats embarrassing statistics, that we could or should have done anything different, apart from the obvious earlier lockdown?

It seems the two adversaries (Trump and China) have the same way of treating statistics, well the Chinese local administration anyway; if they don't suit, bury them, call them fake news, sack the official that allowed them into the public eye (the doctor in China that reported the disease) and blame somebody else for your own failings.

[Soul Requiem]

I see that the figures coming from china are showing that they grossly miscalculate the death toll in Wuhan. As most Western governments based their initial response  on the way the Chinese managed that area and it was thought that they had done quite a good job of containment. Do we think that if we had known that the  deaths were actually 50% higher than reported and in all honesty probably a lot higher than that bearing the way China treats embarrassing statistics, that we could or should have done anything different, apart from the obvious earlier lockdown?

It seems the two adversaries (Trump and China) have the same way of treating statistics, well the Chinese local administration anyway; if they don't suit, bury them, call them fake news, sack the official that allowed them into the public eye (the doctor in China that reported the disease) and blame somebody else for your own failings.

I think it was fairly obvious all along that China had fiddled the statistics massively but at the same time i'd assume that the Western governments were aware of that from the start so not sure how much of a difference it makes in all honesty. You would think for instance that China would be more savvy than to increase the number by exactly 50%.

[guildfordbat]

I see that the figures coming from china are showing that they grossly miscalculate the death toll in Wuhan. As most Western governments based their initial response  on the way the Chinese managed that area and it was thought that they had done quite a good job of containment. Do we think that if we had known that the  deaths were actually 50% higher than reported and in all honesty probably a lot higher than that bearing the way China treats embarrassing statistics, that we could or should have done anything different, apart from the obvious earlier lockdown?

It seems the two adversaries (Trump and China) have the same way of treating statistics, well the Chinese local administration anyway; if they don't suit, bury them, call them fake news, sack the official that allowed them into the public eye (the doctor in China that reported the disease) and blame somebody else for your own failings.

I think it was fairly obvious all along that China had fiddled the statistics massively but at the same time i'd assume that the Western governments were aware of that from the start so not sure how much of a difference it makes in all honesty. You would think for instance that China would be more savvy than to increase the number by exactly 50%.

I'm with Soul there. China was badly and intentionally at fault but we all kinda knew that.

[rodders]

I see that the figures coming from china are showing that they grossly miscalculate the death toll in Wuhan. As most Western governments based their initial response  on the way the Chinese managed that area and it was thought that they had done quite a good job of containment. Do we think that if we had known that the  deaths were actually 50% higher than reported and in all honesty probably a lot higher than that bearing the way China treats embarrassing statistics, that we could or should have done anything different, apart from the obvious earlier lockdown?

It seems the two adversaries (Trump and China) have the same way of treating statistics, well the Chinese local administration anyway; if they don't suit, bury them, call them fake news, sack the official that allowed them into the public eye (the doctor in China that reported the disease) and blame somebody else for your own failings.

You are right but the UK needs to be included in the list of those fudging figures.

What is happening in care homes is nothing short of criminal. Deaths in the UK could be anything from 30-50% higher than reported.

Serious questions need to be asked as to how Germany have such capacity to test, they have so much capacity they are processing other EU countries tests.

Why here the government are saying the antibody test doesn't work, when other countries including Germany and Japan have tests.

Are we just looking for cheaper options or is their something more sinister in delaying increasing tests?

We know also that certain trusts in the UK aren't even using their full capacity to test, so if directed to we could actually do a lot more.

It seems to me the UK governments plan is test as little as possible, let people as many die in care homes and in community as possible and exclude them of the official mortality figures for Covid 19.

I suspect once we are past the surge and the figures have been fudged to show less the a quarter of the deaths, the same antibody tests they now say don't work now, will be rolled out and people will get immunity passports to return to work.

Boris will magically reappear in July and the government will declare their response a great national success as we will have kept to the 20-30k target.

The other 80- 100k elderly and vulnerable (many they've already tagged as DNR) they've eradicated from official figures, who would otherwise cost in pensions and social care will never be mentioned.

[navyblueshorts]

Not entirely sure where I got that 46% number from.

So you don't see any issue that the UK published figures show nearly half of people in ICU and over two thirds of those ventilated are dying?

That we are up to nearly 13k dead (sans community deaths) in UK, so well on course to smash the 20K reasonable worse case target modelled by imperial college.

If the experts have it all sussed out then I'd hate to see it if they didn't.  

I don't think 20,000 was the 'reasonable worst case'. I think the phrase was if we managed to keep coronavirus deaths below 20,000 we'd have done well¹. If the rumours of 4,000 undocumented cases at the weekend were true and we're currently on 13,729, then, unfortunately the chances of us staying below 20,000 is quite slim. I think the worst case scenario was upwards of 200,000 if we did nothing. The reported story is that the govt. was resisting a lockdown and was pursuing herd immunity as a strategy until Niall Ferguson produced the report saying 180,00 people would die, then the country reacted, understandably badly and the government decided to implement a lockdown.² Hence why the Douglas Carswells and Daniel Hannans of this world are bleating that we need to raise the lockdown because it isn't necessary. Although as proponents of the 'people know better than experts' mantra it seems bizarre they've decided the people are wrong on this.

¹ Precisely, and it's still correct.
² I think that's unlikely to be correct, as written. I doubt that UKG had anything else in mind once Ferguson's group had reported. It wasn't, at that point, because 'the country reacted badly'.

I think you've misunderstood. Imperial college modelled a number of interventions using reasonably worst case scenario figures, i.e. using Italian figures of 30% hospitalization originally they modelled viral pneumonia and underestimated the impact hence the herd immunity fiasco.  

The results of the interventions ranged from doing nothing - leading to 250k deaths, or a combination of social distancing measures, the best case being 20k deaths.

So 20K is the predicted best case outcome in reasonably worst case scenario using suppression as the intervention. Whitty recently upped to 20-30k.

The entire published paper can be downloaded here -

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3LVdoufjX3n1nbvpetcPKpl3TvHQzjAkHq9w6Lrh2vtcOpgJ2E2vFk9qQ  

The US scientist have modelled we will have >60k dead.

I've read the paper and I understand what it's saying.

[Soul Requiem]

The UK, Spain and Italy have made it clear from the start their figures are based on patients who have died in hospital, in fact I think it's only France who are including care home deaths in their official figures.

Serious questions need to be asked as to why Germany have such capacity to test? It's not exactly a difficult answer, they have a huge pharmaceutical base on which to fall back on, no other country in Europe has that capability.

I'm sure Boris will magically reappear in July knowing full well that without a vaccine the virus will come back with a vengeance in the winter months, this isn't a plan for a few months it's a plan running well into next year.

[navyblueshorts]

These are the five conditions:

1. “We must protect the NHS’s (National Health Service) ability to cope. We must be confident that we are able to provide sufficient critical care and specialist treatment right across the UK.”

2. “We need to see a sustained and consistent fall in the daily death rates from coronavirus so we are confident that we’ve moved beyond the peak.”

3. “We need to have reliable data from SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) showing that the rate of infection is decreasing to manageable levels across the board.”

4. “We need to be confident that the range of operational challenges, including testing capacity and PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), are in hand, with supply able to meet future demand.”

5. “This is really crucial: we must be confident that any adjustments to the current measures will not risk a second peak of infections that overwhelms the NHS.

I think they're, generally speaking, pretty sound. It's good they have left room to fudge. It allows them to adapt and manoeuvre as we learn more about the disease. If they set very rigid conditions at this stage in the game and they were fulfilled then it could undermine public confidence to then maintain the lockdown if need be.
This may be ignorance talking but unless we can get the numbers down to next to nothing there's very little we can do to stop a second wave. I suppose if we manage to get it right back down the government can actually implement the test, trace and isolate plan that the Germans managed in the first place.

Numbers - thanks for putting the five conditions up.

I'm not automatically dismissive of your points but do think what (also) threatens to undermine public confidence now is the Government's total unwillingness to share in any way what a partial easing of the lockdown might look like. This suggests - to me at least - that Raab and the rest of the Cabinet are unprepared for the next phase and so will resist attempts for us to go there in anything other than a very minimal way. The subjective nature of satisfying these conditions allows them that and perhaps too much so. I'm probably more unhappy with those currently making or ducking decisions (including some of the medical suits I've heard) than the conditions.

Preparedness for the next phase (which is different from entering the next phase) and sensible communication of what is on the table should be a high priority. I doubt that will change until Boris returns to the helm. For his faults, Boris has a connection with many of the public (albeit not much on this forum) and is likely to recognise that we have very largely adhered to the lockdown and so should be trusted with knowing what may follow.

Why do you think, w/ media as they are, UKG would commit themselves to something they have no guarantee of actually delivering? I wouldn't and it makes no sense, at all, given the claim that response is based on developing scientific data.

[navyblueshorts]

I see that the figures coming from china are showing that they grossly miscalculate the death toll in Wuhan. As most Western governments based their initial response  on the way the Chinese managed that area and it was thought that they had done quite a good job of containment. Do we think that if we had known that the  deaths were actually 50% higher than reported and in all honesty probably a lot higher than that bearing the way China treats embarrassing statistics, that we could or should have done anything different, apart from the obvious earlier lockdown?

It seems the two adversaries (Trump and China) have the same way of treating statistics, well the Chinese local administration anyway; if they don't suit, bury them, call them fake news, sack the official that allowed them into the public eye (the doctor in China that reported the disease) and blame somebody else for your own failings.

I think it was fairly obvious all along that China had fiddled the statistics massively but at the same time i'd assume that the Western governments were aware of that from the start so not sure how much of a difference it makes in all honesty. You would think for instance that China would be more savvy than to increase the number by exactly 50%.

It's not exactly. Also, why would China now do this? For me, I can at least believe that this was possible - experience w/ SARS, various influenzas (i.e. fright) and the mad rush we all saw in Jan. China have a lot more explaining to do, but this on its own I don't think is that out of the ordinary.

[Soul Requiem]

Statistically its 50% more Navy based on people having to be a whole number.

[navyblueshorts]

I see that the figures coming from china are showing that they grossly miscalculate the death toll in Wuhan. As most Western governments based their initial response  on the way the Chinese managed that area and it was thought that they had done quite a good job of containment. Do we think that if we had known that the  deaths were actually 50% higher than reported and in all honesty probably a lot higher than that bearing the way China treats embarrassing statistics, that we could or should have done anything different, apart from the obvious earlier lockdown?

It seems the two adversaries (Trump and China) have the same way of treating statistics, well the Chinese local administration anyway; if they don't suit, bury them, call them fake news, sack the official that allowed them into the public eye (the doctor in China that reported the disease) and blame somebody else for your own failings.

You are right but the UK needs to be included in the list of those fudging figures.

What is happening in care homes is nothing short of criminal. Deaths in the UK could be anything from 30-50% higher than reported.

Serious questions need to be asked as to how Germany have such capacity to test, they have so much capacity they are processing other EU countries tests.

Why here the government are saying the antibody test doesn't work, when other countries including Germany and Japan have tests.

Are we just looking for cheaper options or is their something more sinister in delaying increasing tests?

We know also that certain trusts in the UK aren't even using their full capacity to test, so if directed to we could actually do a lot more.

It seems to me the UK governments plan is test as little as possible, let people as many die in care homes and in community as possible and exclude them of the official mortality figures for Covid 19.

I suspect once we are past the surge and the figures have been fudged to show less the a quarter of the deaths, the same antibody tests they now say don't work now, will be rolled out and people will get immunity passports to return to work.

Boris will magically reappear in July and the government will declare their response a great national success as we will have kept to the 20-30k target.

The other 80- 100k elderly and vulnerable (many they've already tagged as DNR) they've eradicated from official figures, who would otherwise cost in pensions and social care will never be mentioned.    

Germany had a significantly larger diagnostic capacity than UK at the start of this and their Länder governmental system has actually helped them in this - answered in CV briefing.

Re. Ab test, you need to be clear what you're talking about - Abs that detect CV, or Abs present in recovered ex-CV patient? If latter, SARS2 is very similar to a whole load of other common CVs (i.e. those that cause common cold etc), so think about it - need to identify if serological Abs caused by SARS2; are all recovered patients' anti-SARS2 Abs detecting same SARS2 epitope?; need a test that only shows +ve if patient has anti-SARS2 Abs etc etc. Re. latter problem, you want people showing as -ve to go back to hospital while not actually -ve? Or kept off work while deemed as +ve, when they're actually a false positive, and then going back to work under assumption they've had SARS2?

Re. bolded sentences, above - you actually believe that?

[navyblueshorts]

Statistically its 50% more Navy based on people having to be a whole number.

So it is. Odd, to be sure, but the idea that as many as 50% were initially uncounted in Wuhan still doesn't seem too out of kilter to me. At least not on its own. Maybe, the CCP like nice, round numbers?

[rodders]

Not entirely sure where I got that 46% number from.

So you don't see any issue that the UK published figures show nearly half of people in ICU and over two thirds of those ventilated are dying?

That we are up to nearly 13k dead (sans community deaths) in UK, so well on course to smash the 20K reasonable worse case target modelled by imperial college.

If the experts have it all sussed out then I'd hate to see it if they didn't.  

I don't think 20,000 was the 'reasonable worst case'. I think the phrase was if we managed to keep coronavirus deaths below 20,000 we'd have done well¹. If the rumours of 4,000 undocumented cases at the weekend were true and we're currently on 13,729, then, unfortunately the chances of us staying below 20,000 is quite slim. I think the worst case scenario was upwards of 200,000 if we did nothing. The reported story is that the govt. was resisting a lockdown and was pursuing herd immunity as a strategy until Niall Ferguson produced the report saying 180,00 people would die, then the country reacted, understandably badly and the government decided to implement a lockdown.² Hence why the Douglas Carswells and Daniel Hannans of this world are bleating that we need to raise the lockdown because it isn't necessary. Although as proponents of the 'people know better than experts' mantra it seems bizarre they've decided the people are wrong on this.

¹ Precisely, and it's still correct.
² I think that's unlikely to be correct, as written. I doubt that UKG had anything else in mind once Ferguson's group had reported. It wasn't, at that point, because 'the country reacted badly'.

I think you've misunderstood. Imperial college modelled a number of interventions using reasonably worst case scenario figures, i.e. using Italian figures of 30% hospitalization originally they modelled viral pneumonia and underestimated the impact hence the herd immunity fiasco.  

The results of the interventions ranged from doing nothing - leading to 250k deaths, or a combination of social distancing measures, the best case being 20k deaths.

So 20K is the predicted best case outcome in reasonably worst case scenario using suppression as the intervention. Whitty recently upped to 20-30k.

The entire published paper can be downloaded here -

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3LVdoufjX3n1nbvpetcPKpl3TvHQzjAkHq9w6Lrh2vtcOpgJ2E2vFk9qQ  

The US scientist have modelled we will have >60k dead.

I've read the paper and I understand what it's saying.

I mean you've misunderstood my use of the term "reasonably worse case". I am paraphrasing Ferguson here that the models are based on reasonably worse case figures of hospitalization/infection rates and the governments "best case" targets are based on this paper.

So you are correct to say the governments targets are best case and not worse case, but that isn't actually what I meant and if you read the article and understood you should know that.

20k is the best outcome we can obtain using suppression, if we get the worst case no of infections and hospitalization rates - i.e. on par with Italy.

If we exceed 20k dead then the assumption is the suppression tactics hasn't worked as well as models hoped in terms of reducing infection (for various reasons) or the outcomes of medical treatment is worse than predicted.

Or both but in ether way we should be asking questions and there should be a public inquiry. The government is not being transparent, figures are being manipulated to be artificially low to look within the range of their target.

So if we are going to criticize China we should be consistent.

[rodders]

Germany had a significantly larger diagnostic capacity than UK at the start of this and their Länder governmental system has actually helped them in this - answered in CV briefing.

Re. Ab test, you need to be clear what you're talking about - Abs that detect CV, or Abs present in recovered ex-CV patient? If latter, SARS2 is very similar to a whole load of other common CVs (i.e. those that cause common cold etc), so think about it - need to identify if serological Abs caused by SARS2; are all recovered patients' anti-SARS2 Abs detecting same SARS2 epitope?; need a test that only shows +ve if patient has anti-SARS2 Abs etc etc. Re. latter problem, you want people showing as -ve to go back to hospital while not actually -ve? Or kept off work while deemed as +ve, when they're actually a false positive, and then going back to work under assumption they've had SARS2?

Re. bolded sentences, above - you actually believe that?

I'm talking about both tests. They are available in other countries, the test to detect covid 19 we are told capacity is the issue - lab processing being the bottle neck - fine but we aren't even using the capacity we have.

The antibody/antigen test - what are we saying the tests don't work when other countries have them?

There is a company here that do them - Randox - other countries are using them including China but the government won't approve for use in the UK. Why the delay?

Yes I believe the bit in bold.

[guildfordbat]

These are the five conditions:

1. “We must protect the NHS’s (National Health Service) ability to cope. We must be confident that we are able to provide sufficient critical care and specialist treatment right across the UK.”

2. “We need to see a sustained and consistent fall in the daily death rates from coronavirus so we are confident that we’ve moved beyond the peak.”

3. “We need to have reliable data from SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) showing that the rate of infection is decreasing to manageable levels across the board.”

4. “We need to be confident that the range of operational challenges, including testing capacity and PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), are in hand, with supply able to meet future demand.”

5. “This is really crucial: we must be confident that any adjustments to the current measures will not risk a second peak of infections that overwhelms the NHS.

I think they're, generally speaking, pretty sound. It's good they have left room to fudge. It allows them to adapt and manoeuvre as we learn more about the disease. If they set very rigid conditions at this stage in the game and they were fulfilled then it could undermine public confidence to then maintain the lockdown if need be.
This may be ignorance talking but unless we can get the numbers down to next to nothing there's very little we can do to stop a second wave. I suppose if we manage to get it right back down the government can actually implement the test, trace and isolate plan that the Germans managed in the first place.

Numbers - thanks for putting the five conditions up.

I'm not automatically dismissive of your points but do think what (also) threatens to undermine public confidence now is the Government's total unwillingness to share in any way what a partial easing of the lockdown might look like. This suggests - to me at least - that Raab and the rest of the Cabinet are unprepared for the next phase and so will resist attempts for us to go there in anything other than a very minimal way. The subjective nature of satisfying these conditions allows them that and perhaps too much so. I'm probably more unhappy with those currently making or ducking decisions (including some of the medical suits I've heard) than the conditions.

Preparedness for the next phase (which is different from entering the next phase) and sensible communication of what is on the table should be a high priority. I doubt that will change until Boris returns to the helm. For his faults, Boris has a connection with many of the public (albeit not much on this forum) and is likely to recognise that we have very largely adhered to the lockdown and so should be trusted with knowing what may follow.

Why do you think, w/ media as they are, UKG would commit themselves to something they have no guarantee of actually delivering? I wouldn't and it makes no sense, at all, given the claim that response is based on developing scientific data.

You're asking me about something I didn't say or suggest. What I did say was - ''Preparedness for the next phase (which is different from entering the next phase) and sensible communication of what is on the table should be a high priority.'' That tallies with my comment that the Government's total unwillingness to share in any way what a partial easing of the lockdown might look like threatens to undermine public confidence.

I believe that's reasonable. It's also a view which is supported by such normally polar opposites as the Tory press and Sir Keir Starmer. The Government have over promised and under delivered on too much so far; the lateness of the lockdown*, ppe, testing and care homes immediately come to mind. It is vital that possible scenarios for the easing of lockdown are considered in advance and that the public be trusted with some awareness of what is under discussion so as to hopefully be assured that further fundamental and catastrophic mistakes are not going to occur as we enter the next phase.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. You are obviously welcome to disagree with them but please don't falsely attribute comments to me and then try to call me out over them.

* Whilst Piers Morgan is far too loud and full of himself for my liking, he nonetheless put some extremely valid points to Hancock yesterday about the Cheltenham Festival and, even more so, Liverpool's home tie in the Champions League being attended by many Italian fans when they were already unable to attend games in their own country.

[123456789.]

The United Kingdom has a large pharmaceutical industry also. In Britain the government decided that only Public Health England would conduct tests. In other countries they’ve allowed Private Involvement on strictly defined lines. In Iceland, for example, the government conducted the testing of hospital admissions and suspected cases, at the same time private companies have engaged in testing across the rest of the country.
It’s come out today that 15,000 people have been arriving untested into the UK everyday including from countries that have significant outbreaks too. That’s 105,000 people every week.

[Soul Requiem]

Germany had a significantly larger diagnostic capacity than UK at the start of this and their Länder governmental system has actually helped them in this - answered in CV briefing.

Re. Ab test, you need to be clear what you're talking about - Abs that detect CV, or Abs present in recovered ex-CV patient? If latter, SARS2 is very similar to a whole load of other common CVs (i.e. those that cause common cold etc), so think about it - need to identify if serological Abs caused by SARS2; are all recovered patients' anti-SARS2 Abs detecting same SARS2 epitope?; need a test that only shows +ve if patient has anti-SARS2 Abs etc etc. Re. latter problem, you want people showing as -ve to go back to hospital while not actually -ve? Or kept off work while deemed as +ve, when they're actually a false positive, and then going back to work under assumption they've had SARS2?

Re. bolded sentences, above - you actually believe that?

I'm talking about both tests. They are available in other countries, the test to detect covid 19 we are told capacity is the issue - lab processing being the bottle neck - fine but we aren't even using the capacity we have.

The antibody/antigen test - what are we saying the tests don't work when other countries have them?

There is a company here that do them - Randox - other countries are using them including China but the government won't approve for use in the UK. Why the delay?

Yes I believe the bit in bold.  

So you think the UK should mass produce an anitbody test when they're questioning the accuracy of those currently available?

[navyblueshorts]

Not entirely sure where I got that 46% number from.

So you don't see any issue that the UK published figures show nearly half of people in ICU and over two thirds of those ventilated are dying?

That we are up to nearly 13k dead (sans community deaths) in UK, so well on course to smash the 20K reasonable worse case target modelled by imperial college.

If the experts have it all sussed out then I'd hate to see it if they didn't.  

I don't think 20,000 was the 'reasonable worst case'. I think the phrase was if we managed to keep coronavirus deaths below 20,000 we'd have done well¹. If the rumours of 4,000 undocumented cases at the weekend were true and we're currently on 13,729, then, unfortunately the chances of us staying below 20,000 is quite slim. I think the worst case scenario was upwards of 200,000 if we did nothing. The reported story is that the govt. was resisting a lockdown and was pursuing herd immunity as a strategy until Niall Ferguson produced the report saying 180,00 people would die, then the country reacted, understandably badly and the government decided to implement a lockdown.² Hence why the Douglas Carswells and Daniel Hannans of this world are bleating that we need to raise the lockdown because it isn't necessary. Although as proponents of the 'people know better than experts' mantra it seems bizarre they've decided the people are wrong on this.

¹ Precisely, and it's still correct.
² I think that's unlikely to be correct, as written. I doubt that UKG had anything else in mind once Ferguson's group had reported. It wasn't, at that point, because 'the country reacted badly'.

I think you've misunderstood. Imperial college modelled a number of interventions using reasonably worst case scenario figures, i.e. using Italian figures of 30% hospitalization originally they modelled viral pneumonia and underestimated the impact hence the herd immunity fiasco.  

The results of the interventions ranged from doing nothing - leading to 250k deaths, or a combination of social distancing measures, the best case being 20k deaths.

So 20K is the predicted best case outcome in reasonably worst case scenario using suppression as the intervention. Whitty recently upped to 20-30k.

The entire published paper can be downloaded here -

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3LVdoufjX3n1nbvpetcPKpl3TvHQzjAkHq9w6Lrh2vtcOpgJ2E2vFk9qQ  

The US scientist have modelled we will have >60k dead.

I've read the paper and I understand what it's saying.

I mean you've misunderstood my use of the term "reasonably worse case". I am paraphrasing Ferguson here that the models are based on reasonably worse case figures of hospitalization/infection rates and the governments "best case" targets are based on this paper.

So you are correct to say the governments targets are best case and not worse case, but that isn't actually what I meant and if you read the article and understood you should know that.

20k is the best outcome we can obtain using suppression, if we get the worst case no of infections and hospitalization rates - i.e. on par with Italy.

If we exceed 20k dead then the assumption is the suppression tactics hasn't worked as well as models hoped in terms of reducing infection (for various reasons) or the outcomes of medical treatment is worse than predicted.

Or both but in ether way we should be asking questions and there should be a public inquiry. The government is not being transparent, figures are being manipulated to be artificially low to look within the range of their target.

So if we are going to criticize China we should be consistent.            

Huh? I wasn't even commenting on your post, initially, but that of 'Numbers'.

There will be an enquiry once this is 'finished' - do you seriously think anyone thinks there aren't lessons to be learned here for the next time?? Whether it's a formal Public Enquiry, I think that's for others to decide.

You have no actual evidence of deliberate manipulation of figures. Are you referring to this supposed issue re. French figures including care homes? That's a non-story.

[123456789.]

https://twitter.com/benjalvarez1/status/1250563198081740800?s=21

This shows a markedly different approach to our own government from Angela Merkel explaining the nature of what they’re facing.

[123456789.]

On the antibody test papers around the world are laughing at us for having spent 20m on antibody tests that don’t work. Although I understood that the deal was subject to them actually working. Using them won’t help anybody and may give inaccurate results that skew the country’s response.

[navyblueshorts]

Germany had a significantly larger diagnostic capacity than UK at the start of this and their Länder governmental system has actually helped them in this - answered in CV briefing.

Re. Ab test, you need to be clear what you're talking about - Abs that detect CV, or Abs present in recovered ex-CV patient? If latter, SARS2 is very similar to a whole load of other common CVs (i.e. those that cause common cold etc), so think about it - need to identify if serological Abs caused by SARS2; are all recovered patients' anti-SARS2 Abs detecting same SARS2 epitope?; need a test that only shows +ve if patient has anti-SARS2 Abs etc etc. Re. latter problem, you want people showing as -ve to go back to hospital while not actually -ve? Or kept off work while deemed as +ve, when they're actually a false positive, and then going back to work under assumption they've had SARS2?

Re. bolded sentences, above - you actually believe that?

I'm talking about both tests. They are available in other countries, the test to detect covid 19 we are told capacity is the issue - lab processing being the bottle neck - fine but we aren't even using the capacity we have.

The antibody/antigen test - what are we saying the tests don't work when other countries have them?

There is a company here that do them - Randox - other countries are using them including China but the government won't approve for use in the UK. Why the delay?

Yes I believe the bit in bold.  

Seriously; do you listen to the CV briefings, at all? Do you listen to what Whitty/Vallance et al are saying re. Ab testing? 'Other countries' don't have robust tests for serological SARS2 Abs.

Randox don't have any better test (i.e. for those currently infected) than anyone else, incl. UKG. They do not have any post-infection serological Ab test. It's just a bog-standard RT-qPCR assay and what looks like an array assay, clothed to look amazing.

There is a GLOBAL shortage of testing reagents.

If you believe the previously bolded bit, there's nothing I can say to you to change your opinions. You've already got your pre-formed story straight in your own head, and will move Heaven & Earth to find anything to substantiate it.

[navyblueshorts]

These are the five conditions:

1. “We must protect the NHS’s (National Health Service) ability to cope. We must be confident that we are able to provide sufficient critical care and specialist treatment right across the UK.”

2. “We need to see a sustained and consistent fall in the daily death rates from coronavirus so we are confident that we’ve moved beyond the peak.”

3. “We need to have reliable data from SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) showing that the rate of infection is decreasing to manageable levels across the board.”

4. “We need to be confident that the range of operational challenges, including testing capacity and PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), are in hand, with supply able to meet future demand.”

5. “This is really crucial: we must be confident that any adjustments to the current measures will not risk a second peak of infections that overwhelms the NHS.

I think they're, generally speaking, pretty sound. It's good they have left room to fudge. It allows them to adapt and manoeuvre as we learn more about the disease. If they set very rigid conditions at this stage in the game and they were fulfilled then it could undermine public confidence to then maintain the lockdown if need be.
This may be ignorance talking but unless we can get the numbers down to next to nothing there's very little we can do to stop a second wave. I suppose if we manage to get it right back down the government can actually implement the test, trace and isolate plan that the Germans managed in the first place.

Numbers - thanks for putting the five conditions up.

I'm not automatically dismissive of your points but do think what (also) threatens to undermine public confidence now is the Government's total unwillingness to share in any way what a partial easing of the lockdown might look like. This suggests - to me at least - that Raab and the rest of the Cabinet are unprepared for the next phase and so will resist attempts for us to go there in anything other than a very minimal way. The subjective nature of satisfying these conditions allows them that and perhaps too much so. I'm probably more unhappy with those currently making or ducking decisions (including some of the medical suits I've heard) than the conditions.

Preparedness for the next phase (which is different from entering the next phase) and sensible communication of what is on the table should be a high priority. I doubt that will change until Boris returns to the helm. For his faults, Boris has a connection with many of the public (albeit not much on this forum) and is likely to recognise that we have very largely adhered to the lockdown and so should be trusted with knowing what may follow.

Why do you think, w/ media as they are, UKG would commit themselves to something they have no guarantee of actually delivering? I wouldn't and it makes no sense, at all, given the claim that response is based on developing scientific data.

You're asking me about something I didn't say or suggest. What I did say was - ''Preparedness for the next phase (which is different from entering the next phase) and sensible communication of what is on the table should be a high priority.'' That tallies with my comment that the Government's total unwillingness to share in any way what a partial easing of the lockdown might look like threatens to undermine public confidence.

I believe that's reasonable. It's also a view which is supported by such normally polar opposites as the Tory press and Sir Keir Starmer. The Government have over promised and under delivered on too much so far; the lateness of the lockdown*, ppe, testing and care homes immediately come to mind. It is vital that possible scenarios for the easing of lockdown are considered in advance and that the public be trusted with some awareness of what is under discussion so as to hopefully be assured that further fundamental and catastrophic mistakes are not going to occur as we enter the next phase.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. You are obviously welcome to disagree with them but please don't falsely attribute comments to me and then try to call me out over them.

* Whilst Piers Morgan is far too loud and full of himself for my liking, he nonetheless put some extremely valid points to Hancock yesterday about the Cheltenham Festival and, even more so, Liverpool's home tie in the Champions League being attended by many Italian fans when they were already unable to attend games in their own country.

Fair points. What I was trying to say was that given, as you say, the view that UKG have over-promised and under-delivered, why would they again commit to something in print that they can then be hauled over the coals for if/when they can't actually do exactly what they'd promised?

I get the public confidence thing, and I suppose that comes from decades of politicians being untrustworthy.

[navyblueshorts]

https://twitter.com/benjalvarez1/status/1250563198081740800?s=21

This shows a markedly different approach to our own government from Angela Merkel explaining the nature of what they’re facing.

It does? Apologies, but I'm failing to see any significant difference. Is this not similar to what Whitty, Vallence et al have been saying? It may be different in tone, but that's perhaps just down to personality. Markedly different? I'm not seeing it from that clip...

[Soul Requiem]

https://twitter.com/benjalvarez1/status/1250563198081740800?s=21

This shows a markedly different approach to our own government from Angela Merkel explaining the nature of what they’re facing.

It does? Apologies, but I'm failing to see any significant difference. Is this not similar to what Whitty, Vallence et al have been saying? It may be different in tone, but that's perhaps just down to personality. Markedly different? I'm not seeing it from that clip...

She has a scientific background but aside from that it's the same information we've been receiving here every day in the briefings.

[rodders]

Huh? I wasn't even commenting on your post, initially, but that of 'Numbers'.

There will be an enquiry once this is 'finished' - do you seriously think anyone thinks there aren't lessons to be learned here for the next time?? Whether it's a formal Public Enquiry, I think that's for others to decide.

You have no actual evidence of deliberate manipulation of figures. Are you referring to this supposed issue re. French figures including care homes? That's a non-story.

Navy I'm starting to wonder if you are trolling here or you are actually Professor Whitty. You said the 20k figure was the best case estimate, that is not technically correct - its the best out come in a reasonably worst case scenario despite what the government would have you believe.

Here's some more fake news for you -

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52322933?fbclid=IwAR1KmGDjA1x40T-3knn7-XJDvQCa4GkNGxmHf0B6-vBaE3tPnDSc-LZRB7Y

So when China under report by 50% it is a sinister cover up, but in the UK when we under report by at least 30%, it is just the way we report.

[rodders]

And more fake news - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/14/uk-care-providers-allege-covid-19-death-toll-underestimated

[rodders]

Seriously; do you listen to the CV briefings, at all? Do you listen to what Whitty/Vallance et al are saying re. Ab testing? 'Other countries' don't have robust tests for serological SARS2 Abs.

Randox don't have any better test (i.e. for those currently infected) than anyone else, incl. UKG. They do not have any post-infection serological Ab test. It's just a bog-standard RT-qPCR assay and what looks like an array assay, clothed to look amazing.

There is a GLOBAL shortage of testing reagents.

If you believe the previously bolded bit, there's nothing I can say to you to change your opinions. You've already got your pre-formed story straight in your own head, and will move Heaven & Earth to find anything to substantiate it.

No I try not to listen to Vallance in Whitty because quite honestly it is bollix and they know it. They understandably don't do pathological lying as well and naturally as the likes of Hancock and Raab, so it is cringe worthy watching them.

Tell me this then - what test are they using in Germany and China to test for antibodies?

https://spectator.us/covid-antibody-test-german-town-shows-15-percent-infection-rate/

[Soul Requiem]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52322933?fbclid=IwAR1KmGDjA1x40T-3knn7-XJDvQCa4GkNGxmHf0B6-vBaE3tPnDSc-LZRB7Y

So when China under report by 50% it is a sinister cover up, but in the UK when we under report by at least 30%, it is just the way we report.    

Pretty terrrible cover up though isn't it, openly stating the daily numbers include only those who have died in hospitals and making all the information publicly available.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

So, Hancock has finally admitted what the NHS has known for a month, we do not have sufficient PPE supplies, we have a whopping 65,000 new gowns arriving today, these are one off use items. Hospitals are already looking at re-using equipment not designed to be re-used. Manufacturers like Burberry have been changing their facilities over to make PPE but have not been receiving the orders.

Testing, probably the most important thing there is to understand and stop the virus, the 100,000 target by the end April is going to be way adrift, we now have the capacity to carry out 35K tests a day, only 18K were carried out yesterday, why are the testing regimes not coordinated with the capacity, they must know when the new facilities are coming on line.

Why are we going to be around 45-50K a day short of the target at the end of April?

When are the people that keep spouting numbers that have no meaning, like 65,000 gowns, probably a couple of days supply going to admit that they have got it wrong and stand aside to allow someone competent to take over. Even Jeremy Hunt seemed to be getting exasperated with Hancock today.

I am starting to wonder if BoJo did have the virus, at least as bad he has been claimed, he was never on a ventilator, at his worst he was only receiving oxygen, is this a reason for a week in intensive care? A lot of better qualified medical personnel seem to be looking at him and saying that he is looking too well to have had the virus that bad. He has disappeared off the scene even the odd video interview. To much flack flying about about his government and cabinet choices perhaps.

The issues with the care sector are just embarrassing to the country as a whole, never mind the government. If there was one sector that needed special attention due to the inhabitants, it was care homes and the people that work there, 8 weeks after the start of the pandemic, we are only now taking them seriously and from the what the care sector is saying, it is a shambles.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52322933?fbclid=IwAR1KmGDjA1x40T-3knn7-XJDvQCa4GkNGxmHf0B6-vBaE3tPnDSc-LZRB7Y

So when China under report by 50% it is a sinister cover up, but in the UK when we under report by at least 30%, it is just the way we report.    

Pretty terrrible cover up though isn't it, openly stating the daily numbers include only those who have died in hospitals and making all the information publicly available.

Not giving out the numbers of deaths in care homes is a form of cover up though, partial information even when it is stated as being only partial is still just that. They should at least make it very clear that care homes and deaths at home are not included in the figures. From what little information has been given out our figures could be up to 50% light on actual deaths due to Covid-19, i.e. nearly up to 20,000 already.

They are still just massaging the figures by not giving everyone all the information, there can only be one reason for that and it's not a lack of knowledge.

[rodders]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52322933?fbclid=IwAR1KmGDjA1x40T-3knn7-XJDvQCa4GkNGxmHf0B6-vBaE3tPnDSc-LZRB7Y

So when China under report by 50% it is a sinister cover up, but in the UK when we under report by at least 30%, it is just the way we report.    

Pretty terrrible cover up though isn't it, openly stating the daily numbers include only those who have died in hospitals and making all the information publicly available.

And up until say (Whitty) they are able to determine how many have died outside hospital settings. I wonder when PHE will release theirs? France tried the same stunt for a while.

In ROI 68% deaths were in care homes, so even 50% is conservative.

If you apply either of these to the current confirmed total we are well over 20K dead now but keep it on the QT, people might start to question the impact of the government ignoring WHO advice and wasting time with the heard immunity strategy.

[Soul Requiem]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52322933?fbclid=IwAR1KmGDjA1x40T-3knn7-XJDvQCa4GkNGxmHf0B6-vBaE3tPnDSc-LZRB7Y

So when China under report by 50% it is a sinister cover up, but in the UK when we under report by at least 30%, it is just the way we report.    

Pretty terrrible cover up though isn't it, openly stating the daily numbers include only those who have died in hospitals and making all the information publicly available.

Not giving out the numbers of deaths in care homes is a form of cover up though, partial information even when it is stated as being only partial is still just that. They should at least make it very clear that care homes and deaths at home are not included in the figures. From what little information has been given out our figures could be up to 50% light on actual deaths due to Covid-19, i.e. nearly up to 20,000 already.

They are still just massaging the figures by not giving everyone all the information, there can only be one reason for that and it's not a lack of knowledge.

It has been made clear that they are not included in the figures, every single day it's made clear the death rate is based solely on those who have died in hospital as is the international standard right now with the exception of France. Catalunya have approx 3,800 deaths thus far but over 7,000 death certificates mentioning Covid-19. This isn't some big cover by the UK, it's happening the world over.

[123456789.]

I'm gonna agree with Soul on this. When someone dies it doesn't magically appear on a tally chart somewhere. People have to fill out forms, log numbers, double check etc. etc. Hospitals, naturally, will have the most effective ways of doing this. The number of hours/ staff committed to doing this will be based on the average number of deaths in a given period. Covid-19 has seen an increase in deaths and recording that won't be easy. In the care homes I imagine the system will be less streamlined than in hospitals. It is not some cover up, in a country with a free press no government with half a brain (I suspect our government has no more and no less) would consider trying to cover up mass deaths. Equally, it does not make sense to suddenly include the deaths now. If they have decided to use hospital deaths to show a reflection of the death rate it makes sense to stick with that. If they suddenly widened the data then there would be mass hysteria. The only way of doing it would be to backdate it to show it wasn't a dramatic rise which of course takes time to do.

Don't get me wrong I don't think we have done well in this at all, and I think after this some pretty serious questions will have to be asked of those at the top of government. Especially considering the deaths are probably now up and around the 20,000 mark and rising once you include care homes. However, for those of you suggesting that the Tory party is seeking to kill off the elderly population need to remember that's their core voting group. There are 11.9 million people over 65 in the UK, as a cohort roughly 60% of them vote for the Conservative party. If everyone in the country got the disease and the death rate was 10% in the elderly population then the Tory party would get 720,000 fewer votes. In 2017 that would have put Corbyn into Number 10. I am not actually suggesting that the government has made that calculation and decided it's better to keep them alive. These people aren't immoral, they aren't some form of Dr Who villainous species that calculates people's worth on a computer and acted accordingly. But if they were they wouldn't be killing off the elderly. If the Tory party wanted to fundamentally alter a country to suit their needs they'd start spiking Vegan Sausage rolls with cyanide.

[123456789.]

In terms of the current situation, Britain has recorded 847 more hospital deaths which brings us up to 14,576 hospital deaths. UCL's Professor Costello has said we could see up to 40,000 deaths in this wave alone, with more waves occurring until there is a vaccine. In terms of herd immunity he seemed to think we'd have hit 10-15% of the country having had the disease. We need to have that up to 60% to achieve a degree of herd immunity that brings the infection rate to below 1 on it's own. I am not sure if it's a simple scale up in terms of deaths to reach that percentage. He has said that Britain looks likely to do the worst in Europe because of the government's slow response.

Sarah Gilbert, the Professor of Vaccinology at Oxford reckons she may be able to get a vaccine ready for mass production by September. I suppose at that point the government would requisition vast amounts of Britain's drug manufacturing capacity to ensure a swift roll out of the vaccine. Other good news is that a trial in Chicago of the drug Remdesivir saw fairly decent results. They recruited 125 people with fevers and/or respiratory issues, of them 113 recovered within a week after daily doses and only two died. I am not sure how that translates in terms of what would be expected from a group of that size showing those symptoms. It has seen direct results in terms of markets though so people who know more than I do seem to think it's good news.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-17/oxford-vaccine-veteran-lays-out-coronavirus-immunization-plans
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/ftse100-optimism-potential-coronavirus-drug-remdesivir
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-52321600/coronavirus-we-could-see-40000-deaths-in-this-wave
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-17/further-waves-of-coronavirus-will-hit-britain-leading-doctor-warns/

[navyblueshorts]

Huh? I wasn't even commenting on your post, initially, but that of 'Numbers'.

There will be an enquiry once this is 'finished' - do you seriously think anyone thinks there aren't lessons to be learned here for the next time?? Whether it's a formal Public Enquiry, I think that's for others to decide.

You have no actual evidence of deliberate manipulation of figures. Are you referring to this supposed issue re. French figures including care homes? That's a non-story.

Navy I'm starting to wonder if you are trolling here or you are actually Professor Whitty. You said the 20k figure was the best case estimate, that is not technically correct - its the best out come in a reasonably worst case scenario despite what the government would have you believe.  

Here's some more fake news for you -

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52322933?fbclid=IwAR1KmGDjA1x40T-3knn7-XJDvQCa4GkNGxmHf0B6-vBaE3tPnDSc-LZRB7Y

So when China under report by 50% it is a sinister cover up, but in the UK when we under report by at least 30%, it is just the way we report.    

I did not. I commented that it was said that 20k was a best case as quoted by Whitty or Vallence (whomever of them it was). I said that sub-20k would still be a good outcome and it will be.

No-one is saying existing #s are correct at point of announcement and I, for one, am not jumping up and down re. a Chinese coverup on Wuhan #s.

Trolling? That's a laugh. I don't have a knee-jerk subscription to the tinfoil internet memes re. coverups etc and I'm trolling? OK...

[navyblueshorts]

And more fake news - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/14/uk-care-providers-allege-covid-19-death-toll-underestimated

What's this supposed to 'prove'?

[navyblueshorts]

Seriously; do you listen to the CV briefings, at all? Do you listen to what Whitty/Vallance et al are saying re. Ab testing? 'Other countries' don't have robust tests for serological SARS2 Abs.

Randox don't have any better test (i.e. for those currently infected) than anyone else, incl. UKG. They do not have any post-infection serological Ab test. It's just a bog-standard RT-qPCR assay and what looks like an array assay, clothed to look amazing.

There is a GLOBAL shortage of testing reagents.

If you believe the previously bolded bit, there's nothing I can say to you to change your opinions. You've already got your pre-formed story straight in your own head, and will move Heaven & Earth to find anything to substantiate it.

No I try not to listen to Vallance in Whitty because quite honestly it is bollix and they know it. They understandably don't do pathological lying as well and naturally as the likes of Hancock and Raab, so it is cringe worthy watching them.

Tell me this then - what test are they using in Germany and China to test for antibodies?

https://spectator.us/covid-antibody-test-german-town-shows-15-percent-infection-rate/

Yeah, right. So you'll ignore experts as you choose. No point in continuing this. Believe what you want.

I have no idea what they're using in Germany/China, but it doesn't mean they have spare capacity to give us even if they wanted to.

[navyblueshorts]

So, Hancock has finally admitted what the NHS has known for a month, we do not have sufficient PPE supplies, we have a whopping 65,000 new gowns arriving today, these are one off use items. Hospitals are already looking at re-using equipment not designed to be re-used. Manufacturers like Burberry have been changing their facilities over to make PPE but have not been receiving the orders.

Testing, probably the most important thing there is to understand and stop the virus, the 100,000 target by the end April is going to be way adrift, we now have the capacity to carry out 35K tests a day, only 18K were carried out yesterday, why are the testing regimes not coordinated with the capacity, they must know when the new facilities are coming on line.

Why are we going to be around 45-50K a day short of the target at the end of April?

When are the people that keep spouting numbers that have no meaning, like 65,000 gowns, probably a couple of days supply going to admit that they have got it wrong and stand aside to allow someone competent to take over. Even Jeremy Hunt seemed to be getting exasperated with Hancock today.

I am starting to wonder if BoJo did have the virus, at least as bad he has been claimed, he was never on a ventilator, at his worst he was only receiving oxygen, is this a reason for a week in intensive care? A lot of better qualified medical personnel seem to be looking at him and saying that he is looking too well to have had the virus that bad. He has disappeared off the scene even the odd video interview. To much flack flying about about his government and cabinet choices perhaps.

The issues with the care sector are just embarrassing to the country as a whole, never mind the government. If there was one sector that needed special attention due to the inhabitants, it was care homes and the people that work there, 8 weeks after the start of the pandemic, we are only now taking them seriously and from the what the care sector is saying, it is a shambles.

We're at 35k+ test capacity by mid-April. Why don't you wait to see where we're at by end of April?

Re. Johnson, that's a pretty lame remark to make, don't you think?

[navyblueshorts]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-52322933?fbclid=IwAR1KmGDjA1x40T-3knn7-XJDvQCa4GkNGxmHf0B6-vBaE3tPnDSc-LZRB7Y

So when China under report by 50% it is a sinister cover up, but in the UK when we under report by at least 30%, it is just the way we report.    

Pretty terrrible cover up though isn't it, openly stating the daily numbers include only those who have died in hospitals and making all the information publicly available.

Not giving out the numbers of deaths in care homes is a form of cover up though, partial information even when it is stated as being only partial is still just that. They should at least make it very clear that care homes and deaths at home are not included in the figures. From what little information has been given out our figures could be up to 50% light on actual deaths due to Covid-19, i.e. nearly up to 20,000 already.

They are still just massaging the figures by not giving everyone all the information, there can only be one reason for that and it's not a lack of knowledge.

They have. Just how many times do they have to state it before it sinks in?

[navyblueshorts]

I'm gonna agree with Soul on this. When someone dies it doesn't magically appear on a tally chart somewhere. People have to fill out forms, log numbers, double check etc. etc. Hospitals, naturally, will have the most effective ways of doing this. The number of hours/ staff committed to doing this will be based on the average number of deaths in a given period. Covid-19 has seen an increase in deaths and recording that won't be easy. In the care homes I imagine the system will be less streamlined than in hospitals. It is not some cover up, in a country with a free press no government with half a brain (I suspect our government has no more and no less) would consider trying to cover up mass deaths. Equally, it does not make sense to suddenly include the deaths now. If they have decided to use hospital deaths to show a reflection of the death rate it makes sense to stick with that. If they suddenly widened the data then there would be mass hysteria. The only way of doing it would be to backdate it to show it wasn't a dramatic rise which of course takes time to do.

Don't get me wrong I don't think we have done well in this at all, and I think after this some pretty serious questions will have to be asked of those at the top of government. Especially considering the deaths are probably now up and around the 20,000 mark and rising once you include care homes. However, for those of you suggesting that the Tory party is seeking to kill off the elderly population need to remember that's their core voting group. There are 11.9 million people over 65 in the UK, as a cohort roughly 60% of them vote for the Conservative party. If everyone in the country got the disease and the death rate was 10% in the elderly population then the Tory party would get 720,000 fewer votes. In 2017 that would have put Corbyn into Number 10. I am not actually suggesting that the government has made that calculation and decided it's better to keep them alive. These people aren't immoral, they aren't some form of Dr Who villainous species that calculates people's worth on a computer and acted accordingly. But if they were they wouldn't be killing off the elderly. If the Tory party wanted to fundamentally alter a country to suit their needs they'd start spiking Vegan Sausage rolls with cyanide.

[lostinwales]

The UK, Spain and Italy have made it clear from the start their figures are based on patients who have died in hospital, in fact I think it's only France who are including care home deaths in their official figures.

Serious questions need to be asked as to why Germany have such capacity to test? It's not exactly a difficult answer, they have a huge pharmaceutical base on which to fall back on, no other country in Europe has that capability.

I'm sure Boris will magically reappear in July knowing full well that without a vaccine the virus will come back with a vengeance in the winter months, this isn't a plan for a few months it's a plan running well into next year.

Hmmm. This is an area where we are none too shabby either. And yet....

[navyblueshorts]

The UK, Spain and Italy have made it clear from the start their figures are based on patients who have died in hospital, in fact I think it's only France who are including care home deaths in their official figures.

Serious questions need to be asked as to why Germany have such capacity to test? It's not exactly a difficult answer, they have a huge pharmaceutical base on which to fall back on, no other country in Europe has that capability.

I'm sure Boris will magically reappear in July knowing full well that without a vaccine the virus will come back with a vengeance in the winter months, this isn't a plan for a few months it's a plan running well into next year.

Hmmm. This is an area where we are none too shabby either. And yet....

Not in this sort of diagnostic testing, or the supply of kits/reagents for such tests.

[navyblueshorts]

A few lessons here re. testing, lockdown durations and likely endpoints, perhaps?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-52305055

Get used to it, folks.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

So, Hancock has finally admitted what the NHS has known for a month, we do not have sufficient PPE supplies, we have a whopping 65,000 new gowns arriving today, these are one off use items. Hospitals are already looking at re-using equipment not designed to be re-used. Manufacturers like Burberry have been changing their facilities over to make PPE but have not been receiving the orders.

Testing, probably the most important thing there is to understand and stop the virus, the 100,000 target by the end April is going to be way adrift, we now have the capacity to carry out 35K tests a day, only 18K were carried out yesterday, why are the testing regimes not coordinated with the capacity, they must know when the new facilities are coming on line.

Why are we going to be around 45-50K a day short of the target at the end of April?

When are the people that keep spouting numbers that have no meaning, like 65,000 gowns, probably a couple of days supply going to admit that they have got it wrong and stand aside to allow someone competent to take over. Even Jeremy Hunt seemed to be getting exasperated with Hancock today.

I am starting to wonder if BoJo did have the virus, at least as bad he has been claimed, he was never on a ventilator, at his worst he was only receiving oxygen, is this a reason for a week in intensive care? A lot of better qualified medical personnel seem to be looking at him and saying that he is looking too well to have had the virus that bad. He has disappeared off the scene even the odd video interview. To much flack flying about about his government and cabinet choices perhaps.

The issues with the care sector are just embarrassing to the country as a whole, never mind the government. If there was one sector that needed special attention due to the inhabitants, it was care homes and the people that work there, 8 weeks after the start of the pandemic, we are only now taking them seriously and from the what the care sector is saying, it is a shambles.

We're at 35k+ test capacity by mid-April. Why don't you wait to see where we're at by end of April?

Re. Johnson, that's a pretty lame remark to make, don't you think?

Err... no. Par for the course with him.

With regard to the "we will be doing well if we can keep the death rate below 20,000", is that 20,000 hospital deaths, they do not say it is and therefore I assume not, we are probably over that now with care home deaths and home deaths so we are not doing well by their own figures.

You cannot use hospital deaths as one measure and compare it to an overall figure, that is just a manipulation of the truth.

[Crimey]

A few lessons here re. testing, lockdown durations and likely endpoints, perhaps?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-52305055

Get used to it, folks.

I suppose this is why herd immunity is still going to play a role in getting somewhere close to normal - we're never going to be able to kill the virus off with lockdowns, so best to re-open and then go back into lockdown if infections start to reach a certain point. We can't stop people catching the virus, without completely altering everybody's way of life, we can't rely on a vaccine ever being developed - so the aim just has to be to make sure the healthcare system is protected and preventable deaths are prevented.

[123456789.]

On the testing front per million front we are on 6467. In Europe Czechia, Denmark, Latvia, Greenland, Ireland, Austria, Slovenia, Italy, Lithuania, Spain, Germany, Cyprus, Andorra, Portugal, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway, Estonia, Malta, Luxembourg and Ireland have all managed to do double the amount per million than we have. It's not that we don't have the capacity that these countries have. It is either that we have been unable to mobilise that capacity or decided that we simply did not need to. The fact of the matter is that on testing we have done worse than most countries with similar economic standing to our own. Countries that tested more extensively were able to trace their cases more effectively, they have, broadly speaking, been able to keep the deaths much, much lower than we have.

On Boris Johnson, he had the illness, he was very near dying. Remember the government's entire 'herd immunity' strategy is based on the reasonable assumption that you cannot be reinfected. If they pretended he had the illness and then he actually caught it later in the crisis then there would be pandemonium everywhere. I agree on the government being incompetent on this in many, many areas. But if we want to have a reasonable discussion on this we have to remain in the realm of reality. The testing was really poor, and we have more deaths than countries that tested better, our lockdown was quite late and we have more deaths than countries that locked down earlier. We had events going on at Cheltenham going ahead when Ireland had shut down it's St Patrick's Day celebrations. When football with crowds had been cancelled in Italy and Spain we had thousands of Spanish football supporters watching a game live in Liverpool. Even now when most countries in the world are engaging in testing on arrival, we have, apparently, 15,000 people per day arriving untested to our airports. Every Thursday the country goes out and claps the NHS, our government hasn't provided them with the equipment they need to do their jobs safely. Equally, we've had emergency hospitals popping up in cities across the country. If it was happening in Germany we would be applauding. We've got around 3,000 spare intensive care beds which is quite impressive. The economic measures have not been perfect, as we have heard on here from people who are struggling, but they are better than most countries. I've actually read a fair amount of foreign media during this, largely because our own has become increasingly Americanised in terms of polarisation, with propaganda on one side and incessant attacks from the other. Foreign publications tend to express the view that I have which was that our government was horrendous to begin with to such an extent that it's being playing catch up ever since. There have been relative good points though, that dispel any notion that Boris Johnson is sat in a big leather chair, stroking his rescue dog ushering a fatal disease through a population and kidding on he's got coronavirus. I have to say that I do think the big errors to begin with were so egregious that, if things pan out as badly as some are suggesting, it would be honourable for the Prime Minister to resign. Not because he is some evil supervillain but simply because he got very important things very wrong.

[navyblueshorts]

So, Hancock has finally admitted what the NHS has known for a month, we do not have sufficient PPE supplies, we have a whopping 65,000 new gowns arriving today, these are one off use items. Hospitals are already looking at re-using equipment not designed to be re-used. Manufacturers like Burberry have been changing their facilities over to make PPE but have not been receiving the orders.

Testing, probably the most important thing there is to understand and stop the virus, the 100,000 target by the end April is going to be way adrift, we now have the capacity to carry out 35K tests a day, only 18K were carried out yesterday, why are the testing regimes not coordinated with the capacity, they must know when the new facilities are coming on line.

Why are we going to be around 45-50K a day short of the target at the end of April?

When are the people that keep spouting numbers that have no meaning, like 65,000 gowns, probably a couple of days supply going to admit that they have got it wrong and stand aside to allow someone competent to take over. Even Jeremy Hunt seemed to be getting exasperated with Hancock today.

I am starting to wonder if BoJo did have the virus, at least as bad he has been claimed, he was never on a ventilator, at his worst he was only receiving oxygen, is this a reason for a week in intensive care? A lot of better qualified medical personnel seem to be looking at him and saying that he is looking too well to have had the virus that bad. He has disappeared off the scene even the odd video interview. To much flack flying about about his government and cabinet choices perhaps.

The issues with the care sector are just embarrassing to the country as a whole, never mind the government. If there was one sector that needed special attention due to the inhabitants, it was care homes and the people that work there, 8 weeks after the start of the pandemic, we are only now taking them seriously and from the what the care sector is saying, it is a shambles.

We're at 35k+ test capacity by mid-April. Why don't you wait to see where we're at by end of April?

Re. Johnson, that's a pretty lame remark to make, don't you think?

Err... no. Par for the course with him.

With regard to the "we will be doing well if we can keep the death rate below 20,000", is that 20,000 hospital deaths, they do not say it is and therefore I assume not, we are probably over that now with care home deaths and home deaths so we are not doing well by their own figures.

You cannot use hospital deaths as one measure and compare it to an overall figure, that is just a manipulation of the truth.

You said:

I am starting to wonder if BoJo did have the virus, at least as bad he has been claimed, he was never on a ventilator, at his worst he was only receiving oxygen, is this a reason for a week in intensive care? A lot of better qualified medical personnel seem to be looking at him and saying that he is looking too well to have had the virus that bad. He has disappeared off the scene even the odd video interview. To much flack flying about about his government and cabinet choices perhaps.

What that says is you you think he wasn't ill, or wasn't as ill as has been claimed. Pretty shoddy claim, as I said.

I'll ignore the hospital deaths comment. Been explained ad nauseam.

[navyblueshorts]

On the testing front per million front we are on 6467. In Europe Czechia, Denmark, Latvia, Greenland, Ireland, Austria, Slovenia, Italy, Lithuania, Spain, Germany, Cyprus, Andorra, Portugal, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway, Estonia, Malta, Luxembourg and Ireland have all managed to do double the amount per million than we have. It's not that we don't have the capacity that these countries have. It is either that we have been unable to mobilise that capacity or decided that we simply did not need to. The fact of the matter is that on testing we have done worse than most countries with similar economic standing to our own. Countries that tested more extensively were able to trace their cases more effectively, they have, broadly speaking, been able to keep the deaths much, much lower than we have.

On Boris Johnson, he had the illness, he was very near dying. Remember the government's entire 'herd immunity' strategy is based on the reasonable assumption that you cannot be reinfected. If they pretended he had the illness and then he actually caught it later in the crisis then there would be pandemonium everywhere. I agree on the government being incompetent on this in many, many areas. But if we want to have a reasonable discussion on this we have to remain in the realm of reality. The testing was really poor, and we have more deaths than countries that tested better, our lockdown was quite late and we have more deaths than countries that locked down earlier. We had events going on at Cheltenham going ahead when Ireland had shut down it's St Patrick's Day celebrations. When football with crowds had been cancelled in Italy and Spain we had thousands of Spanish football supporters watching a game live in Liverpool. Even now when most countries in the world are engaging in testing on arrival, we have, apparently, 15,000 people per day arriving untested to our airports. Every Thursday the country goes out and claps the NHS, our government hasn't provided them with the equipment they need to do their jobs safely. Equally, we've had emergency hospitals popping up in cities across the country. If it was happening in Germany we would be applauding. We've got around 3,000 spare intensive care beds which is quite impressive. The economic measures have not been perfect, as we have heard on here from people who are struggling, but they are better than most countries. I've actually read a fair amount of foreign media during this, largely because our own has become increasingly Americanised in terms of polarisation, with propaganda on one side and incessant attacks from the other. Foreign publications tend to express the view that I have which was that our government was horrendous to begin with to such an extent that it's being playing catch up ever since. There have been relative good points though, that dispel any notion that Boris Johnson is sat in a big leather chair, stroking his rescue dog ushering a fatal disease through a population and kidding on he's got coronavirus. I have to say that I do think the big errors to begin with were so egregious that, if things pan out as badly as some are suggesting, it would be honourable for the Prime Minister to resign. Not because he is some evil supervillain but simply because he got very important things very wrong.

Thanks for your efforts w/ this. I don't agree w/ it all as you state it, but thanks.

What's clear, as w/ so much else around here, is that no-one, but no-one, is going to change their already formed views, no matter what. Have fun.

[lostinwales]

Grauniad has a more in depth article on the progress of BJ's illness.

It's actually good - does talk about how the presentation of his illness got a bit 'stalinist' at times.

The crux of it is that he got very sick and his age and weight put him in an at risk category. He got oxygen but didn't go on a ventilator, and without treatment he would probably not have survived. He didn't suffer as much as many have.

I still think it is of huge concern that the idea that he was faking it could have gained so much traction - and that is all about trust in the government. They have spent so much time and energy on spouting BS that they are hard to believe.

[Sponsored content]