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]

...

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.

Maybe although my views are currently aligned with the utterings of Sir Keir Starmer which is something I didn't anticipate and represents quite a change this year!

[123456789.]

I think the conspiracy about him not being ill is a facet of human nature. There are a lot of very, very strange people out there who believe odd things. You've got Max Evans, former Scotland centre, alleging that vaccines are there to control us and radiation causes this. Lee Ryan from Blue is convinced it is the Devil doing all this, although, to be fair, this is exactly the sort of thing the Devil would do. There's the people who believe the Chinese made this in a lab. There's the people who believe the Americans built this in a lab and released it near the Chinese labs to make it look like the Chinese built it in a lab. It's a facet of human nature. Conspiracy theories are exciting, sometimes even comforting that the things that are wrong with the world are the consequence of one or two malevolent plotters in the background. If only we could overthrow Bill Gates' evil empire then the land of milk and honey is just around the corner. Think about the story of David Cameron and the pig. In effect the man in question tried to buy a Cabinet position by donating to the Tory party, Cameron said no and so he alleged that Cameron defiled a pig. Much of what David Cameron did in office was questionable, one of the most prominent accusations at him came about because he did the right thing and people believe Lord Ashcroft's bogus story. Conspiracy theories are exciting. Is it more exciting and interesting that our Prime Minister who boasted in March of his handshaking prowess in the middle of a pandemic when the rest of the world was encouraging social distancing somehow ended up catching the disease that may have spread as widely as 10% of our population? Or is it more exciting that Boris Johnson made up he had the illness, to gain public affection whilst simultaneously plotting to kill your Nan?


Actually I've convinced myself. He was never ill. I doubt his name even is Boris.

[guildfordbat]

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.

I agree with your final sentence about the BS being spouted by the Government but I'm not convinced the idea that Boris was faking his illness has gained much traction. That may be the view of a few nutty keyboard warriors but not the public as a whole, surely? I suspect much of the country and the rest of the Cabinet would welcome him back now and especially fronting the 5pm briefings. Currently these briefings come across as a feeble propaganda exercise presented by a robotic charlatan flanked by a couple of bureaucrats (none of whom can even operate a powerpoint!). For his faults, Boris speaks with emotion and has an understanding of his audience.

[lostinwales]

I think the conspiracy about him not being ill is a facet of human nature. There are a lot of very, very strange people out there who believe odd things. You've got Max Evans, former Scotland centre, alleging that vaccines are there to control us and radiation causes this. Lee Ryan from Blue is convinced it is the Devil doing all this, although, to be fair, this is exactly the sort of thing the Devil would do. There's the people who believe the Chinese made this in a lab. There's the people who believe the Americans built this in a lab and released it near the Chinese labs to make it look like the Chinese built it in a lab. It's a facet of human nature. Conspiracy theories are exciting, sometimes even comforting that the things that are wrong with the world are the consequence of one or two malevolent plotters in the background. If only we could overthrow Bill Gates' evil empire then the land of milk and honey is just around the corner.  Think about the story of David Cameron and the pig. In effect the man in question tried to buy a Cabinet position by donating to the Tory party, Cameron said no and so he alleged that Cameron defiled a pig. Much of what David Cameron did in office was questionable, one of the most prominent accusations at him came about because he did the right thing and people believe Lord Ashcroft's bogus story. Conspiracy theories are exciting. Is it more exciting and interesting that our Prime Minister who boasted in March of his handshaking prowess in the middle of a pandemic when the rest of the world was encouraging social distancing somehow ended up catching the disease that may have spread as widely as 10% of our population? Or is it more exciting that Boris Johnson made up he had the illness, to gain public affection whilst simultaneously plotting to kill your Nan?


Actually I've convinced myself. He was never ill. I doubt his name even is Boris.

His name is Alexander

[guildfordbat]

...

His name is Alexander

[Duty281]

I think the conspiracy about him not being ill is a facet of human nature. There are a lot of very, very strange people out there who believe odd things. You've got Max Evans, former Scotland centre, alleging that vaccines are there to control us and radiation causes this. Lee Ryan from Blue is convinced it is the Devil doing all this, although, to be fair, this is exactly the sort of thing the Devil would do. There's the people who believe the Chinese made this in a lab. There's the people who believe the Americans built this in a lab and released it near the Chinese labs to make it look like the Chinese built it in a lab. It's a facet of human nature. Conspiracy theories are exciting, sometimes even comforting that the things that are wrong with the world are the consequence of one or two malevolent plotters in the background. If only we could overthrow Bill Gates' evil empire then the land of milk and honey is just around the corner.  Think about the story of David Cameron and the pig. In effect the man in question tried to buy a Cabinet position by donating to the Tory party, Cameron said no and so he alleged that Cameron defiled a pig. Much of what David Cameron did in office was questionable, one of the most prominent accusations at him came about because he did the right thing and people believe Lord Ashcroft's bogus story. Conspiracy theories are exciting. Is it more exciting and interesting that our Prime Minister who boasted in March of his handshaking prowess in the middle of a pandemic when the rest of the world was encouraging social distancing somehow ended up catching the disease that may have spread as widely as 10% of our population? Or is it more exciting that Boris Johnson made up he had the illness, to gain public affection whilst simultaneously plotting to kill your Nan?


Actually I've convinced myself. He was never ill. I doubt his name even is Boris.

His name is Alexander

And Alex is what his friends call him.

[navyblueshorts]

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.

I agree with your final sentence about the BS being spouted by the Government but I'm not convinced the idea that Boris was faking his illness has gained much traction. That may be the view of a few nutty keyboard warriors but not the public as a whole, surely? I suspect much of the country and the rest of the Cabinet would welcome him back now and especially fronting the 5pm briefings. Currently these briefings come across as a feeble propaganda exercise presented by a robotic charlatan flanked by a couple of bureaucrats (none of whom can even operate a powerpoint!). For his faults, Boris speaks with emotion and has an understanding of his audience.

Are they, therefore, asking themselves for the "next slide, please", then???

[lostinwales]

I think the conspiracy about him not being ill is a facet of human nature. There are a lot of very, very strange people out there who believe odd things. You've got Max Evans, former Scotland centre, alleging that vaccines are there to control us and radiation causes this. Lee Ryan from Blue is convinced it is the Devil doing all this, although, to be fair, this is exactly the sort of thing the Devil would do. There's the people who believe the Chinese made this in a lab. There's the people who believe the Americans built this in a lab and released it near the Chinese labs to make it look like the Chinese built it in a lab. It's a facet of human nature. Conspiracy theories are exciting, sometimes even comforting that the things that are wrong with the world are the consequence of one or two malevolent plotters in the background. If only we could overthrow Bill Gates' evil empire then the land of milk and honey is just around the corner.  Think about the story of David Cameron and the pig. In effect the man in question tried to buy a Cabinet position by donating to the Tory party, Cameron said no and so he alleged that Cameron defiled a pig. Much of what David Cameron did in office was questionable, one of the most prominent accusations at him came about because he did the right thing and people believe Lord Ashcroft's bogus story. Conspiracy theories are exciting. Is it more exciting and interesting that our Prime Minister who boasted in March of his handshaking prowess in the middle of a pandemic when the rest of the world was encouraging social distancing somehow ended up catching the disease that may have spread as widely as 10% of our population? Or is it more exciting that Boris Johnson made up he had the illness, to gain public affection whilst simultaneously plotting to kill your Nan?


Actually I've convinced myself. He was never ill. I doubt his name even is Boris.

His name is Alexander

And Alex is what his friends call him.

I thought they called him Sacha

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Watching TV this morning, Hancock is now admitting we have not and never have had sufficient PPE, we just cannot source it in a world where everybody is after it.

He was basically flayed alive by NHS professionals and the presenters, we have known about it since mid January and have consistently been told that we have sufficient, now if that is not an outright lie, it shows that the government have not got a clue about what was required, as the numbers of cases , or so we are told is inline with expectations. It only a matter of simple math to work out how many gowns or whatever we are going to need per day and we have no run out, the 65K arriving today is apparently enough to last London 1.5 days.

They have known this was going to happen for months and have done nothing about it, within that time frame, making excuses about how difficult procurement is does not wash. Burberry can make 23K gowns in 3 weeks, presumably Barbour presumably the same, nothing like sufficient to keep a single city going.

Decisive action was needed like the building of the Nightingale hospitals at a very early point in this crisis, we should have been mobilising all the garment manufacturers in the country from the ladies that have set up these micro single person factories to make gowns to the big clothing manufacturing companies. We have furloughed thousands of cutters and machinists in this country that could be making this equipment. Utter incompetence from this government in this respect.

Sasha is not what I would call him, but I can't, my wife is watching me write this. Anyway, I thought it was Ali after his grandfather. He also has "de Pfeffel" in it. Say it with and East End accent and imagination and it sounds about right, Oh, it's the f...g Ethel

[Soul Requiem]

Done nothing about it? Yeah right of course they haven't.

[jimbopip]

Done nothing about it? Yeah right of course they haven't.

Soul Requiem, I have given you a negative vote for this posting because I honestly cannot see what it brings to the discussion. Your posts tend towards snide personal comments as if you feel personally slighted whenever someone criticises the government, and need to retaliate.

The best gloss we can put on Matt Hancock's behaviour is that he was putting a brave face on things to keep up morale until the situation improved. The worst case is that he knew there was a massive problem with procuring and delivering PPE and he deliberately lied...repeatedly.

Consider Big Gee and the huge number of retired health care professionals like him who were asked to go back to help out in this crisis.

"Hmm, I'm in the age group which is most at risk of dying if I get infected. I'll be working very closely with infected people. PPE will be a crucial part of keeping myself safe. Oh! Matt Hancock assures me that there's plenty on the way."

Thankfully, although Gee was infected he made a full recovery; as did MrsGee who caught it from him: sadly far too many decent, brave people like Gee have not been so lucky.

As I say Soul requiem, I'm not at all sure what you're trying to achieve with the comment you posted.

[Soul Requiem]

The point of that post was what exactly?

Oh yes an attack on a post that doesn't conform to this sites status quo, if you come out with absolute garbage it's fine as long as it's a pathetic attack on the government. Imagine actually thinking they're sitting there doing nothing about it instead taking a step back, realising that mistakes have been made and that this is a global crisis with PPE shortages the world over.

[lostinwales]

Annecdotal (yeah I heard it on twitter - Jess Phillips post) that some companies who can and do produce PPE have not been contacted by Gov despite trying to get in touch.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Soul, what have they done about it, if they couldn't procure it early doors, then they had time to set up a lot more home produced PPE manufacturing. They didn't do either, it was a massive miscalculation on either the amount that would be required or that they would be able to buy as much as they needed.

The shortage of PPE may not be avoidable, but they could have gone a long way towards reducing the shortages by procuring earlier or producing our own. As usual, it is too little too late.

It would appear that companies in this country that produce PPE have not even been contacted when they have tried to contact the government (lostinwales post)

We are a country full of gifted people with great ideas and abilities, an 8 year old girl who with her granny is working around the clock to 3D print adjustable frames on to which a simple visor bought from a stationary shop and with holes punched in it can be attached and either taken off cleaned and re-used or replaced in a couple of minutes. She is using her pocket money to fund the plastic for the 3D printer. It takes an hour on their basic printer to print one frame. She typifies what can be done if people are given the opportunity and a chance to make the effort. Small scale I know, as I have said before we have thousands of garment workers laid off or furloughed in this country that could be making the things the NHS needs, there is no excuse for not having more PPE than we have, a lot more.

As a result of this governments incompetence, NHS workers and carers are being asked to carry out their work without the proper safeguards and in doing so put their lives, the lives of their families and other people at risk.

[jimbopip]

The point of that post was what exactly?

Oh yes an attack on a post that doesn't conform to this sites status quo, if you come out with absolute garbage it's fine as long as it's a pathetic attack on the government. Imagine actually thinking they're sitting there doing nothing about it instead taking a step back, realising that mistakes have been made and that this is a global crisis with PPE shortages the world over.

As I suggested, very emotive, retaliatory language. Are you alright?
Perhaps, if you tried to be more conciliatory in your language and less aggressive you might start feeling more at peace with yourself, and the rest of us. Find your happy place.

[navyblueshorts]

WELL-PAST-IT

While it's laudable that 8-year olds etc are trying to help, if you were an ICU respiratory specialist, would you necessarily want to go into bat w/ a home-made visor that hadn't actually been tested to see if it was suitable?

PPE is presumably made to relevant BS/EN standards. Maybe this isn't as straight forward as you want it to be?

Not aimed at you personally W-P-I, but certainly, I think we've found the answers as to who should actually be running the country on these boards. All this talent going begging. Everything is so obvious.

[jimbopip]

As Will Rodgers said, about sixty years ago,

"The trouble with this country is that all the people who should be running it are driving cabs or cutting hair."

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Navy......, the front line staff at the local hospital are using the visors they have made and they were on t.v. this morning wearing them and saying thank you, so an 8 year old and her granny are doing something that Handoncock is not

[navyblueshorts]

Navy......, the front line staff at the local hospital are using the visors they have made and they were on t.v. this morning wearing them and saying thank you, so an 8 year old and her granny are doing something that Handoncock is not

Good for them. I guess anything may be better than nothing. As to the bolded bit, above, I'm afraid that's just silly. Of course Hancock et al are 'doing something'. I'd be willing to bet they're busting their arses, more or less 24/7, in a situation where there are no easy answers.

[jimbopip]

Navy......, the front line staff at the local hospital are using the visors they have made and they were on t.v. this morning wearing them and saying thank you, so an 8 year old and her granny are doing something that Handoncock is not

Good for them. I guess anything may be better than nothing. As to the bolded bit, above, I'm afraid that's just silly. Of course Hancock et al are 'doing something'. I'd be willing to bet they're busting their arses, more or less 24/7, in a situation where there are no easy answers.

Probably true.
But is it the old "work smarter not harder" syndrome?
I do agree that this crisis should transcend Party lines and that blanket condemnation of the government just because "we don't like them" is not helpful. However, pointing the finger when someone is consistently lying, or when people are dying because of someone's ineptitude is hardly the wrong thing to do.

[Soul Requiem]

Navy......, the front line staff at the local hospital are using the visors they have made and they were on t.v. this morning wearing them and saying thank you, so an 8 year old and her granny are doing something that Handoncock is not

How old are you?

[123456789.]

For what it's worth on the PPE debate, I think it's been our government's biggest failure, it was utterly immoral and is, frankly, indefensible. The idea of putting an army of veterans in to fight a disease without the appropriate equipment is insane. Soul, I'd quite like to know what parts of the government's response you think could have been better, simply out of interest.

There's three articles I've come across this morning that offer something slightly new on this debate.

1. https://time.com/5823384/remdesivier-coronavirus-study-results/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-patients-given-us-trial-drug-are-off-ventilators-in-a-day-pb3jnzf3k
The salient points I've found if you can't be bothered to read the articles are the following:

The study included 125 people with COVID-19, all of whom were treated with the remdesivir, which is not currently approved in the U.S. for treating any disease. Of the 125 patients in the Chicago study, 113 had severe disease, meaning they had difficulty breathing

Dr Kathleen Mullane, who is overseeing a trial of the drug at the University of Chicago, said that some severely ill patients had recovered rapidly enough to be taken off ventilators within 24 hours. Most had not needed the full treatment course of ten days. Of 125 patients, only two had died.
“Most of our patients are severe and most of them are leaving at six days,” she said.

The University of Chicago results follow other encouraging findings from a study published April 10 in the New England Journal of Medicine that followed 53 patients who were treated with remdesivir in the U.S., Europe, Canada and Japan on a compassionate use basis. In that study, 68% improved and 57% of those needing ventilators no longer needed mechanical breathing support after taking the drug for 10 days.

The Caveats are that this is not a peer reviewed report, nor is there a proper control group. It's not an enormous sample size. More trials will follow in the UK. The positive, of course, is that the initial results seem good. 2 severely ill patients out of 125 dying is significantly better than the general trend. South Korea and Germany appear to have the most accurate, wide-ranging testing and they are showing a death rate of 1.99% and 4.98% amongst all of those tested. 2 from 125 is a death rate of 1.6% amongst those who have a severe form of the illness. Equally the compassionate use trial in Chicago showed a 57% survival rate of those on ventilators which is far higher than any of the varying numbers shown elsewhere.

As far as I am concerned that is very much so a reason to be positive, hopefully the results will continue to be good.

2. https://bylinetimes.com/2020/04/17/the-coronavirus-crisis-boris-johnson-said-superman-brexit-britain-would-take-advantage-of-the-pandemic-and-go-its-own-way-seven-weeks-before-lockdown/
https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1251458390028664832?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-in-greenwich-3-february-2020

The first link is the original article, the second link is an interview with the editor who published it, the last is a link to the full transcript of the speech. The editor believes that a paragraph on Coronavirus dropped into a speech on post-Brexit trade constitutes a 'smoking gun'. It's worth pointing that the Byline Times is a rather left-wing, pro-European publication that has been looking for Boris Johnson's 'Smoking Gun' ever since he became Prime Minister. The analysis of the speech is perhaps too assumptive at points. Nonetheless the speech is not a great look for our Prime Minister.

And when there is a risk that new diseases such as Coronavirus would trigger a panic, and a desire for market segregation that go beyond what is medically rational, to the point of doing real and unnecessary economic damage. Then, at that moment, humanity needs some government somewhere that is willing to make the case powerfully for freedom of exchange. Some country that is ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles and leap into the phone booth and emerge with its cloak flowing as the supercharged champion of the rights of the population of this earth. I can tell you in all humility, that the UK is ready for that role.

I don't think it's a smoking gun that'll do for Boris Johnson. Personally I feel that the smoking gun, if there is to be one, is the PPE for NHS staff and the death rate we have compared to the rest of Europe and the developed world. It seems to me, not that Johnson intended to take any deaths on the chin to enjoy an economic advantage, but rather that he believed draconian measures taken by other countries may be irrational. That where every other country shut things down, we kept going and things were still fine. This was ten days after the lockdown in Wuhan. I don't think it shows he was at the head of an evil, malevolent strategy to keep calm and carry on while the old and the vulnerable fell by the wayside.

It's not an entirely ridiculous idea in practice. The Swedish plan seems to be based on roughly similar principles; that an overzealous response would unnecessarily damage the economy and restrict our civil liberties. I saw an interview with their Chief Epidemiologist in which he explained that herd immunity was the natural by-product of such a strategy rather than the specified goal. I have not been able to find a link to the interview anywhere but I have found a brief explanation of what they are choosing to do.

Polling suggests many Swedes continue to support the government’s strategy, which has entailed urging citizens to take personal responsibility for following physical distancing guidelines rather than strictly enforcing mandatory rules.
While authorities have closed senior high schools and banned gatherings of more than 50 people, they have asked – rather than ordered – people to avoid non-essential travel, work from home and stay indoors if they are over 70 or are feeling ill.
Statistics show roughly half the Swedish workforce is now working from home, public transport usage has fallen by 50% in Stockholm and the capital’s streets are about 70% less busy than usual – but Swedes are still able to shop, go to restaurants, get haircuts and send children under 16 to class even if a family member is ill.

The consensus in the Nordic countries is that Sweden has got things wrong where the rest of them have got things right. On March 15th, Norway and Sweden both had one death from Coronavirus. Today Sweden has had 1400 where Norway has had 136. Sweden's population is roughly twice the size of Norway's. Sweden's death rate per million is five times larger than Norway's. Incidentally, Norway's testing rate per million was about five times larger than Sweden's. Sweden's rate per million is still lower than our own but the Scandinavian countries were about two weeks behind us in terms of the progress of the disease. The reason I am stressing this is that Johnson's speech in February was not the work of an evil madman, there are other countries following that path. The evidence suggests, quite strongly, that he got it very wrong. We reacted slower than Ireland in implementing a lockdown and we are faring far worse than they are. Sweden has pursued an unorthodox strategy and has fared far worse than Norway. On Covid-19 Boris Johnson has not been malevolent, just simply incompetent.

The speech does elucidate that our government always intended doing things differently. It does show the inchoate reasoning of the strategy that meant we were behind the rest of Europe. It dispels the notion that our government has merely been struck down by unforeseeable events and is simply doing the best it can. The language of Clark Kent (incidentally I've never been convinced that the fact Ken Clarke and Superman have similar names is entirely a coincidence) and Superman in a speech regarding a global pandemic does not compare favourably to Merkel, Macron or Varadkar. I believe it shows a startling immaturity and a rather tenuous grip on reality.

3. https://www.ft.com/content/5f393d77-8e5b-4a85-b647-416efbc575ec

This is a more stark failure. It seems that the Government went for 'a bad ventilator is better than no ventilator' approach. Sending business on a wild goose chase to provide very basic ventilators and then realised what they received was not up to scratch. The consequence has been that we haven't reached the 18,000 ventilators that Hancock claimed we'd need at this point.

One quote they used in the article, with regard to ventilators, pretty much sums up the Government's entire strategy: "starting the process in this way was unwise. It has gradually become more sensible". Unfortunately gradual improvement, generally speaking, still puts us behind comparable countries around Europe. It's too late for the people who lost their lives, the families who have lost loved ones and the medical professionals without the basic equipment necessary to carry out their jobs safely.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Great post numbers, now wait for two comments that disagree.

[navyblueshorts]

Top posting 123456789!

Some quick thoughts.

Re. PPE, I'm not sure I accept that Hancock etc pleaded w/ elderly ex-NHS workers to return knowing that PPE wouldn't be available for them (was it actually the case that this was, in fact, widespread?). They knew the elderly demographic were more at risk - surely they hoped, assumed and had reason to believe that PPE supply wouldn't have been as hard as it's been?

Re. remdesivir, let's hope it continues to look good. That said, given Gilead is a U.S. company, I wouldn't hold your breath on Trump allowing it to be easily available internationally.

Re. Sweden etc. I guess we'll see what the situation is whenever re. reach 'the end' of this. It's still relatively early, but I'm curious by the % case fatality rates. Are we saying our NHS isn't actually very good? Why are many of the so-called first world health systems seeing the highest % case fatality rates and why is Germany (at the moment) still lowish? Are they intervening earlier re. treatment once tested as +ve cf. UK, Italy, France, Netherlands, Spain etc? Why is Portugal relatively better off than Spain? Is this simply a reflection of relative %s of at risk groups within a population? Is it anything to do w/ population density?

Re. vents, I can't access the FT, but it's probably not uncommon, where panic is an issue, to perhaps go off on what ultimately turns out to be not the best track. That said, is there any suggestion that anyone needing ventilating hasn't had access to one as yet?

[navyblueshorts]

Great post numbers, now wait for two comments that disagree.

Constructive...

[lostinwales]

Also seen in passing that we ordered 20million dollars worth of antibody tests (2 million?) from 2 chinese companies that didn't pass tests carried out at Oxford University. The government is doing its best to recover the money.

[123456789.]

I think the percentage case of fatality rates is almost all down to the methods of testing. In effect the more you test, the more confirmed cases of Coronavirus you pick up. The more you pick up, the people who die make up a smaller percentage. At the moment we have about 80% of the number of Coronavirus confirmed cases that Germany has had, but 350% of the deaths. That element of the testing is effectively the proof of a wider story. Because Germany tested more people earlier they were able to isolate some of those with mild or no symptoms before they passed it on to someone who would develop a severe or fatal illness. Iceland's testing is even more widespread than Germany's, largely because they have extensive testing laboratories for fishing reasons. They have found that around fifty percent of cases show no symptoms.

If an infected person with mild or no symptoms infects three people he knows for example; Person A develops no symptoms, Person B develops moderate symptoms and Person C develops severe or even fatal ones. In Britain we're broadly, speaking only testing Person C and occasionally Person B. Person A may, unwittingly, infect a further three people and the situation continues. In Germany they are more likely than we are to test the original person. That person isolates themselves allowing the mild illness to die inside them. They also inform Person A, B and C who can isolate themselves knowing they may also have the virus. In Britain we were acting at the end of the chain and in Germany they were acting at the beginning. That meant they could slow the virus down. I am not sure the relative strengths of the health service are that important, rather it's how many people the health services are having to deal with at once.

In Britain we have the added problem of a health service that isn't protected as well as it could be and several people from the at risk category coming back into the service. There's one A&E that reported 50% of its staff tested positive for Coronavirus. The issue is that people in the 'at risk' category for Covid-19 are more likely to be going to A&E anyway. So if they come into A&E with a separate issue they may well catch it too and are more likely to be fatalities. If we had tested the staff earlier and more frequently they could have been isolated before it spread through the workforce.

I know there are practicality issues and this is an unprecedented situation but it does frustrate me that on such a crucial issue we are doing worse than other countries. I don't think this is entirely down to the elected government, although the buck should stop with them, they have the capacity to overrule decisions made in Departments and it is also quite a lot their fault. It's been suggested that PHE have refused to allow private testing alongside their own. In Iceland, their equivalent has run a fairly similar testing strategy to Public Health England. They have also allowed private companies to test in the wider community amongst those showing no symptoms or mild symptoms to further understand and combat the illness.

[navyblueshorts]

I think the percentage case of fatality rates is almost all down to the methods of testing. In effect the more you test, the more confirmed cases of Coronavirus you pick up. The more you pick up, the people who die make up a smaller percentage. At the moment we have about 80% of the number of Coronavirus confirmed cases that Germany has had, but 350% of the deaths. That element of the testing is effectively the proof of a wider story. Because Germany tested more people earlier they were able to isolate some of those with mild or no symptoms before they passed it on to someone who would develop a severe or fatal illness. Iceland's testing is even more widespread than Germany's, largely because they have extensive testing laboratories for fishing reasons. They have found that around fifty percent of cases show no symptoms.

If an infected person with mild or no symptoms infects three people he knows for example; Person A develops no symptoms, Person B develops moderate symptoms and Person C develops severe or even fatal ones. In Britain we're broadly, speaking only testing Person C and occasionally Person B. Person A may, unwittingly, infect a further three people and the situation continues. In Germany they are more likely than we are to test the original person. That person isolates themselves allowing the mild illness to die inside them. They also inform Person A, B and C who can isolate themselves knowing they may also have the virus. In Britain we were acting at the end of the chain and in Germany they were acting at the beginning. That meant they could slow the virus down. I am not sure the relative strengths of the health service are that important, rather it's how many people the health services are having to deal with at once.

In Britain we have the added problem of a health service that isn't protected as well as it could be and several people from the at risk category coming back into the service. There's one A&E that reported 50% of its staff tested positive for Coronavirus. The issue is that people in the 'at risk' category for Covid-19 are more likely to be going to A&E anyway. So if they come into A&E with a separate issue they may well catch it too and are more likely to be fatalities. If we had tested the staff earlier and more frequently they could have been isolated before it spread through the workforce.

I know there are practicality issues and this is an unprecedented situation but it does frustrate me that on such a crucial issue we are doing worse than other countries. I don't think this is entirely down to the elected government, although the buck should stop with them, they have the capacity to overrule decisions made in Departments and it is also quite a lot their fault. It's been suggested that PHE have refused to allow private testing alongside their own. In Iceland, their equivalent has run a fairly similar testing strategy to Public Health England. They have also allowed private companies to test in the wider community amongst those showing no symptoms or mild symptoms to further understand and combat the illness.

Thanks, but that's not what I meant. I think you're talking about cases per 100k etc, which will be directly related to testing levels. What I'm interested in, is deaths as a % of those confirmed as Covid +ve. i.e as given by:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

[Soul Requiem]

Great post numbers, now wait for two comments that disagree.

So we should all fall in line and agree with your point of view?

[123456789.]

I think the percentage case of fatality rates is almost all down to the methods of testing. In effect the more you test, the more confirmed cases of Coronavirus you pick up. The more you pick up, the people who die make up a smaller percentage. At the moment we have about 80% of the number of Coronavirus confirmed cases that Germany has had, but 350% of the deaths. That element of the testing is effectively the proof of a wider story. Because Germany tested more people earlier they were able to isolate some of those with mild or no symptoms before they passed it on to someone who would develop a severe or fatal illness. Iceland's testing is even more widespread than Germany's, largely because they have extensive testing laboratories for fishing reasons. They have found that around fifty percent of cases show no symptoms.

If an infected person with mild or no symptoms infects three people he knows for example; Person A develops no symptoms, Person B develops moderate symptoms and Person C develops severe or even fatal ones. In Britain we're broadly, speaking only testing Person C and occasionally Person B. Person A may, unwittingly, infect a further three people and the situation continues. In Germany they are more likely than we are to test the original person. That person isolates themselves allowing the mild illness to die inside them. They also inform Person A, B and C who can isolate themselves knowing they may also have the virus. In Britain we were acting at the end of the chain and in Germany they were acting at the beginning. That meant they could slow the virus down. I am not sure the relative strengths of the health service are that important, rather it's how many people the health services are having to deal with at once.

In Britain we have the added problem of a health service that isn't protected as well as it could be and several people from the at risk category coming back into the service. There's one A&E that reported 50% of its staff tested positive for Coronavirus. The issue is that people in the 'at risk' category for Covid-19 are more likely to be going to A&E anyway. So if they come into A&E with a separate issue they may well catch it too and are more likely to be fatalities. If we had tested the staff earlier and more frequently they could have been isolated before it spread through the workforce.

I know there are practicality issues and this is an unprecedented situation but it does frustrate me that on such a crucial issue we are doing worse than other countries. I don't think this is entirely down to the elected government, although the buck should stop with them, they have the capacity to overrule decisions made in Departments and it is also quite a lot their fault. It's been suggested that PHE have refused to allow private testing alongside their own. In Iceland, their equivalent has run a fairly similar testing strategy to Public Health England. They have also allowed private companies to test in the wider community amongst those showing no symptoms or mild symptoms to further understand and combat the illness.

Thanks, but that's not what I meant. I think you're talking about cases per 100k etc, which will be directly related to testing levels. What I'm interested in, is deaths as a % of those confirmed as Covid +ve. i.e as given by:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

Sorry I don't think I explained it very well. From what I can gather, in Britain we are only the a small group of people. A large number of whom on arrival at hospital with Covid-19 symptoms. By that point they are already very sick and relatively likely to die. So our death rate is much higher. In Germany they test more widely in the community and therefore pick up people who are symptomless or have mild symptoms therefore less likely to die. I don't know the exact numbers so will have to hypothesize a bit, but Germany has tested three times as much as us. Hypothetically speaking for every 1000 cases in Country A, they test 50 of them and 5 of the confirmed cases die, giving a mortality rate of 10%. In Country B for every 1000, they test 150 of them and 5 of them die. Giving a mortality rate of 3%. The same number of people are dying but the mortality rate in Country A seems three times as high. In short we are testing the tip of the iceberg, in Germany they are testing below the water level and morbidity appears to reflect that.
The practical implications are more serious than pretty rough statistics. The likelihood is that we have far more cases of Coronavirus than Germany but we have tested far less. In terms of fighting the disease, ostensibly one might think that this reduced rate of testing just means things look worse cosmetically. In reality our greater number of cases are, it seems in all likelihood, the consequences of political decisions. Remember the first case in Germany was the 27th January, four days before the first confirmed case in the UK. We had our first case, for example, on the same day as Ireland as well but theirs and Germany's superior testing meant they were better able to isolate confirmed cases and therefore reduce the rate of infection. It also meant they had a clearer picture and implemented a lockdown earlier. When it seemed that our own government was still pursuing a strategy akin to Sweden which now appears to be more dangerous and less effective than the more common lockdown strategy. Of course we won't know for sure until this is all over but the early signs suggest the vast majority of countries were right and the minority (i.e Sweden and originally ourselves) were wrong.

[Jetty]

For what it's worth on the PPE debate, I think it's been our government's biggest failure, it was utterly immoral and is, frankly, indefensible. The idea of putting an army of veterans in to fight a disease without the appropriate equipment is insane. Soul, I'd quite like to know what parts of the government's response you think could have been better, simply out of interest.

There's three articles I've come across this morning that offer something slightly new on this debate.

1. https://time.com/5823384/remdesivier-coronavirus-study-results/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-patients-given-us-trial-drug-are-off-ventilators-in-a-day-pb3jnzf3k
The salient points I've found if you can't be bothered to read the articles are the following:

The study included 125 people with COVID-19, all of whom were treated with the remdesivir, which is not currently approved in the U.S. for treating any disease. Of the 125 patients in the Chicago study, 113 had severe disease, meaning they had difficulty breathing

Dr Kathleen Mullane, who is overseeing a trial of the drug at the University of Chicago, said that some severely ill patients had recovered rapidly enough to be taken off ventilators within 24 hours. Most had not needed the full treatment course of ten days. Of 125 patients, only two had died.
“Most of our patients are severe and most of them are leaving at six days,” she said.

The University of Chicago results follow other encouraging findings from a study published April 10 in the New England Journal of Medicine that followed 53 patients who were treated with remdesivir in the U.S., Europe, Canada and Japan on a compassionate use basis. In that study, 68% improved and 57% of those needing ventilators no longer needed mechanical breathing support after taking the drug for 10 days.

The Caveats are that this is not a peer reviewed report, nor is there a proper control group. It's not an enormous sample size. More trials will follow in the UK. The positive, of course, is that the initial results seem good. 2 severely ill patients out of 125 dying is significantly better than the general trend. South Korea and Germany appear to have the most accurate, wide-ranging testing and they are showing a death rate of 1.99% and 4.98% amongst all of those tested. 2 from 125 is a death rate of 1.6% amongst those who have a severe form of the illness. Equally the compassionate use trial in Chicago showed a 57% survival rate of those on ventilators which is far higher than any of the varying numbers shown elsewhere.

As far as I am concerned that is very much so a reason to be positive, hopefully the results will continue to be good.

2. https://bylinetimes.com/2020/04/17/the-coronavirus-crisis-boris-johnson-said-superman-brexit-britain-would-take-advantage-of-the-pandemic-and-go-its-own-way-seven-weeks-before-lockdown/
https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1251458390028664832?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-in-greenwich-3-february-2020

The first link is the original article, the second link is an interview with the editor who published it, the last is a link to the full transcript of the speech. The editor believes that a paragraph on Coronavirus dropped into a speech on post-Brexit trade constitutes a 'smoking gun'. It's worth pointing that the Byline Times is a rather left-wing, pro-European publication that has been looking for Boris Johnson's 'Smoking Gun' ever since he became Prime Minister. The analysis of the speech is perhaps too assumptive at points. Nonetheless the speech is not a great look for our Prime Minister.

And when there is a risk that new diseases such as Coronavirus would trigger a panic, and a desire for market segregation that go beyond what is medically rational, to the point of doing real and unnecessary economic damage. Then, at that moment, humanity needs some government somewhere that is willing to make the case powerfully for freedom of exchange. Some country that is ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles and leap into the phone booth and emerge with its cloak flowing as the supercharged champion of the rights of the population of this earth. I can tell you in all humility, that the UK is ready for that role.

I don't think it's a smoking gun that'll do for Boris Johnson. Personally I feel that the smoking gun, if there is to be one, is the PPE for NHS staff and the death rate we have compared to the rest of Europe and the developed world. It seems to me, not that Johnson intended to take any deaths on the chin to enjoy an economic advantage, but rather that he believed draconian measures taken by other countries may be irrational. That where every other country shut things down, we kept going and things were still fine. This was ten days after the lockdown in Wuhan. I don't think it shows he was at the head of an evil, malevolent strategy to keep calm and carry on while the old and the vulnerable fell by the wayside.

It's not an entirely ridiculous idea in practice. The Swedish plan seems to be based on roughly similar principles; that an overzealous response would unnecessarily damage the economy and restrict our civil liberties. I saw an interview with their Chief Epidemiologist in which he explained that herd immunity was the natural by-product of such a strategy rather than the specified goal. I have not been able to find a link to the interview anywhere but I have found a brief explanation of what they are choosing to do.

Polling suggests many Swedes continue to support the government’s strategy, which has entailed urging citizens to take personal responsibility for following physical distancing guidelines rather than strictly enforcing mandatory rules.
While authorities have closed senior high schools and banned gatherings of more than 50 people, they have asked – rather than ordered – people to avoid non-essential travel, work from home and stay indoors if they are over 70 or are feeling ill.
Statistics show roughly half the Swedish workforce is now working from home, public transport usage has fallen by 50% in Stockholm and the capital’s streets are about 70% less busy than usual – but Swedes are still able to shop, go to restaurants, get haircuts and send children under 16 to class even if a family member is ill.

The consensus in the Nordic countries is that Sweden has got things wrong where the rest of them have got things right. On March 15th, Norway and Sweden both had one death from Coronavirus. Today Sweden has had 1400 where Norway has had 136. Sweden's population is roughly twice the size of Norway's. Sweden's death rate per million is five times larger than Norway's. Incidentally, Norway's testing rate per million was about five times larger than Sweden's. Sweden's rate per million is still lower than our own but the Scandinavian countries were about two weeks behind us in terms of the progress of the disease. The reason I am stressing this is that Johnson's speech in February was not the work of an evil madman, there are other countries following that path. The evidence suggests, quite strongly, that he got it very wrong. We reacted slower than Ireland in implementing a lockdown and we are faring far worse than they are. Sweden has pursued an unorthodox strategy and has fared far worse than Norway. On Covid-19 Boris Johnson has not been malevolent, just simply incompetent.

The speech does elucidate that our government always intended doing things differently. It does show the inchoate reasoning of the strategy that meant we were behind the rest of Europe. It dispels the notion that our government has merely been struck down by unforeseeable events and is simply doing the best it can. The language of Clark Kent (incidentally I've never been convinced that the fact Ken Clarke and Superman have similar names is entirely a coincidence) and Superman in a speech regarding a global pandemic does not compare favourably to Merkel, Macron or Varadkar. I believe it shows a startling immaturity and a rather tenuous grip on reality.

3. https://www.ft.com/content/5f393d77-8e5b-4a85-b647-416efbc575ec

This is a more stark failure. It seems that the Government went for 'a bad ventilator is better than no ventilator' approach. Sending business on a wild goose chase to provide very basic ventilators and then realised what they received was not up to scratch. The consequence has been that we haven't reached the 18,000 ventilators that Hancock claimed we'd need at this point.

One quote they used in the article, with regard to ventilators, pretty much sums up the Government's entire strategy: "starting the process in this way was unwise. It has gradually become more sensible". Unfortunately gradual improvement, generally speaking, still puts us behind comparable countries around Europe. It's too late for the people who lost their lives, the families who have lost loved ones and the medical professionals without the basic equipment necessary to carry out their jobs safely.

https://order-order.com/2020/04/18/must-watch-swedish-epidemiologist-lays-swedens-thinking-video/  ?

Guardian
Britain has appointed the former Goldman Sachs investment banker who led the country’s 2012 Olympic planning to organise the domestic manufacture of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health workers treating coronavirus patients.

The government has faced severe criticism from doctors and health workers over shortages of equipment, including masks, visors and gowns, and the suggestion that some items might have to be re-used if supplies run out.

Paul Deighton, who was chief executive of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, was appointed by Health Secretary Matt Hancock on Sunday.

“He will lead a singular and relentless focus on PPE as the country’s top manufacturing priority, with the full weight of the government behind him,” Hancock said.

[lostinwales]

Sunday times has published a very very damning article on Boris's lack of activity and leadership during the current crisis. This is the SUNDAY TIMES remember...

Those who can't see it via traditional routes can find a copy on twitter here

https://twitter.com/StuartBudd1/status/1251616775504113664?s=20

[lostinwales]

Just to add from my point of view it seems that there is some very positive comments about the scientists working in the background, but not Vallance or Whitty.

The modelling of the progress of the virus was good. The initial choice to treat it as a flu outbreak a lot less so

[Pr4wn]

Careful, buddy. You'll have people coming out saying you're being too political at this time of crisis.

And it was all the fault of the advisers, clearly.

Seriously, though, saying that much of this was completely unavoidable is just lazy. The government have repeatedly put Brexit before saving lives, that much is now clear.

[Pr4wn]

Or maybe that's just my bias talking. Who knows, eh?

[No name Bertie]

Dear navyblueshorts, you made a number of personal attacks against me claiming me of obfuscation and bias.  Please tell me what bias you think I might have?  To make it easier for you for now I won't even ask for any evidence.

For your memory the following is what transpired:

Spoiler:

[Samo]

Just to add from my point of view it seems that there is some very positive comments about the scientists working in the background, but not Vallance or Whitty.

The modelling of the progress of the virus was good. The initial choice to treat it as a flu outbreak a lot less so

Bloody left-wing media and their anti-Tory bias.

[BamBam]

Unbelievable article from the Sunday Times

Soul, let us know your thoughts once you've finished sucking the black off the bottom of Johnson's boots

[navyblueshorts]

I think the percentage case of fatality rates is almost all down to the methods of testing. In effect the more you test, the more confirmed cases of Coronavirus you pick up. The more you pick up, the people who die make up a smaller percentage. At the moment we have about 80% of the number of Coronavirus confirmed cases that Germany has had, but 350% of the deaths. That element of the testing is effectively the proof of a wider story. Because Germany tested more people earlier they were able to isolate some of those with mild or no symptoms before they passed it on to someone who would develop a severe or fatal illness. Iceland's testing is even more widespread than Germany's, largely because they have extensive testing laboratories for fishing reasons. They have found that around fifty percent of cases show no symptoms.

If an infected person with mild or no symptoms infects three people he knows for example; Person A develops no symptoms, Person B develops moderate symptoms and Person C develops severe or even fatal ones. In Britain we're broadly, speaking only testing Person C and occasionally Person B. Person A may, unwittingly, infect a further three people and the situation continues. In Germany they are more likely than we are to test the original person. That person isolates themselves allowing the mild illness to die inside them. They also inform Person A, B and C who can isolate themselves knowing they may also have the virus. In Britain we were acting at the end of the chain and in Germany they were acting at the beginning. That meant they could slow the virus down. I am not sure the relative strengths of the health service are that important, rather it's how many people the health services are having to deal with at once.

In Britain we have the added problem of a health service that isn't protected as well as it could be and several people from the at risk category coming back into the service. There's one A&E that reported 50% of its staff tested positive for Coronavirus. The issue is that people in the 'at risk' category for Covid-19 are more likely to be going to A&E anyway. So if they come into A&E with a separate issue they may well catch it too and are more likely to be fatalities. If we had tested the staff earlier and more frequently they could have been isolated before it spread through the workforce.

I know there are practicality issues and this is an unprecedented situation but it does frustrate me that on such a crucial issue we are doing worse than other countries. I don't think this is entirely down to the elected government, although the buck should stop with them, they have the capacity to overrule decisions made in Departments and it is also quite a lot their fault. It's been suggested that PHE have refused to allow private testing alongside their own. In Iceland, their equivalent has run a fairly similar testing strategy to Public Health England. They have also allowed private companies to test in the wider community amongst those showing no symptoms or mild symptoms to further understand and combat the illness.

Thanks, but that's not what I meant. I think you're talking about cases per 100k etc, which will be directly related to testing levels. What I'm interested in, is deaths as a % of those confirmed as Covid +ve. i.e as given by:

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

Sorry I don't think I explained it very well. From what I can gather, in Britain we are only the a small group of people. A large number of whom on arrival at hospital with Covid-19 symptoms. By that point they are already very sick and relatively likely to die. So our death rate is much higher. In Germany they test more widely in the community and therefore pick up people who are symptomless or have mild symptoms therefore less likely to die. I don't know the exact numbers so will have to hypothesize a bit, but Germany has tested three times as much as us. Hypothetically speaking for every 1000 cases in Country A, they test 50 of them and 5 of the confirmed cases die, giving a mortality rate of 10%. In Country B for every 1000, they test 150 of them and 5 of them die. Giving a mortality rate of 3%. The same number of people are dying but the mortality rate in Country A seems three times as high. In short we are testing the tip of the iceberg, in Germany they are testing below the water level and morbidity appears to reflect that.
The practical implications are more serious than pretty rough statistics. The likelihood is that we have far more cases of Coronavirus than Germany but we have tested far less. In terms of fighting the disease, ostensibly one might think that this reduced rate of testing just means things look worse cosmetically. In reality our greater number of cases are, it seems in all likelihood, the consequences of political decisions. Remember the first case in Germany was the 27th January, four days before the first confirmed case in the UK. We had our first case, for example, on the same day as Ireland as well but theirs and Germany's superior testing meant they were better able to isolate confirmed cases and therefore reduce the rate of infection. It also meant they had a clearer picture and implemented a lockdown earlier. When it seemed that our own government was still pursuing a strategy akin to Sweden which now appears to be more dangerous and less effective than the more common lockdown strategy. Of course we won't know for sure until this is all over but the early signs suggest the vast majority of countries were right and the minority (i.e Sweden and originally ourselves) were wrong.

Yeah. Makes sense. Both those Johns Hopkins measures are influenced by absolute testing #s; missed that first off. Ta.

[navyblueshorts]

Or maybe that's just my bias talking. Who knows, eh?

Good to see you again, Prawn. If the cap fits.... .

[navyblueshorts]

Dear navyblueshorts, you made a number of personal attacks against me claiming me of obfuscation and bias.  Please tell me what bias you think I might have?  To make it easier for you for now I won't even ask for any evidence.

For your memory the following is what transpired:

Spoiler:

[123456789.]

I'm not sure triumphalist posting on here is entirely a good idea. If this thread was just people who agreed it would be a boring place. You may not agree with everyone but that's sort of the point of these forums. It's only an issue to disagree if you make it personal.
That being said the Times article is fairly damning but not remotely surprising if you've heard about Johnson's way of working before. David Cameron's autobiography gives a pretty withering account of Boris Johnson's performance during the London riots.

If you want to read the article you get two free articles per month if you register.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Oh good, Bertie is back

[navyblueshorts]

I'm not sure triumphalist posting on here is entirely a good idea. If this thread was just people who agreed it would be a boring place. You may not agree with everyone but that's sort of the point of these forums. It's only an issue to disagree if you make it personal.
That being said the Times article is fairly damning but not remotely surprising if you've heard about Johnson's way of working before. David Cameron's autobiography gives a pretty withering account of Boris Johnson's performance during the London riots.

If you want to read the article you get two free articles per month if you register.

Yeah, it's not a great look for UKG and Johnson, assuming all points are accurate. Worth remembering that people are being interviewed on reflection and easy to see what could/should have been done better from benefit of hindsight.
That ST article illustrates what this country has too often been, both now and in the past - complacent and arrogant. We'll somehow muddle through and all that. A series of decision points at which, arguably, the wrong choices were made for reasons that seemed OK at the time to those that made them, and that all add up to greater than the sum of their parts. Post-pandemic inquiry will be interesting!

[BamBam]

There's a difference between people who disagree by posting factual, informed discussion points and bootlickers getting personally offended by any criticism of a prime minister who missed cobra meetings to play with a costumed dragon and attend a Tory donor ball

[guildfordbat]

...

Guardian
Britain has appointed the former Goldman Sachs investment banker who led the country’s 2012 Olympic planning to organise the domestic manufacture of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health workers treating coronavirus patients.

The government has faced severe criticism from doctors and health workers over shortages of equipment, including masks, visors and gowns, and the suggestion that some items might have to be re-used if supplies run out.

Paul Deighton, who was chief executive of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, was appointed by Health Secretary Matt Hancock on Sunday.

“He will lead a singular and relentless focus on PPE as the country’s top manufacturing priority, with the full weight of the government behind him,” Hancock said.

I don't know anything more about Deighton than said above but I believe it's essential to have a CEO with experience and proven success in running a large corporation or event appointed to manage the whole PPE situation. Since uni days, Hancock's only roles as far as I'm aware have been as a politician and economic advisor; his inexperience and incompetence in relation to operational and practical matters have stood out with him very badly letting the country down concerning PPE. My only grumble for now is that Deighton's appointment should have come earlier; however, that for me sums up so much of this tragic fiasco.

[guildfordbat]

Just to add from my point of view it seems that there is some very positive comments about the scientists working in the background, but not Vallance or Whitty.

The modelling of the progress of the virus was good. The initial choice to treat it as a flu outbreak a lot less so

Along with Yvonne Doyle, neither of these two give me any confidence. Instead, giving the impression that they would be more comfortable counting paperclips ... or having others to do it for them.

[Pr4wn]

Anyway. I'm sure most of you will be in agreement with me that it's very clear who is most to blame for all of these developments. And for Covid in general, actually.

Carole Baskin.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

...
 
Guardian
Britain has appointed the former Goldman Sachs investment banker who led the country’s 2012 Olympic planning to organise the domestic manufacture of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health workers treating coronavirus patients.

The government has faced severe criticism from doctors and health workers over shortages of equipment, including masks, visors and gowns, and the suggestion that some items might have to be re-used if supplies run out.

Paul Deighton, who was chief executive of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, was appointed by Health Secretary Matt Hancock on Sunday.

“He will lead a singular and relentless focus on PPE as the country’s top manufacturing priority, with the full weight of the government behind him,” Hancock said.

I don't know anything more about Deighton than said above but I believe it's essential to have a CEO with experience and proven success in running a large corporation or event appointed to manage the whole PPE situation. Since uni days, Hancock's only roles as far as I'm aware have been as a politician and economic advisor; his inexperience and incompetence in relation to operational and practical matters have stood out with him very badly letting the country down concerning PPE. My only grumble for now is that Deighton's appointment should have come earlier; however, that for me sums up so much of this tragic fiasco.

Unfortunately, that seems to be true of the vast majority of our politicians these days, it has suddenly become a profession rather than a vocation. The result is, the country is being run by a political class that have no experience of life outside of politics, do not understand anything practical with regard to business and to whom the average wage per week is the cost of a decent meal for two in Westminster and then probably on expenses. How many politicians of any party have grown up in poverty and worked their way up the ladder and then gone in to politics to try and make life better for all. None that I could name.

Gove, (the back stabber extraordinaire) has now admitted that Johnson missed 5 consecutive corona virus meetings in the build up to the crisis. He was keeping out of the way at Chequers. At the time of the crisis here, we were shipping PPE to China.

[Pr4wn]

...
 
Guardian
Britain has appointed the former Goldman Sachs investment banker who led the country’s 2012 Olympic planning to organise the domestic manufacture of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health workers treating coronavirus patients.

The government has faced severe criticism from doctors and health workers over shortages of equipment, including masks, visors and gowns, and the suggestion that some items might have to be re-used if supplies run out.

Paul Deighton, who was chief executive of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, was appointed by Health Secretary Matt Hancock on Sunday.

“He will lead a singular and relentless focus on PPE as the country’s top manufacturing priority, with the full weight of the government behind him,” Hancock said.

I don't know anything more about Deighton than said above but I believe it's essential to have a CEO with experience and proven success in running a large corporation or event appointed to manage the whole PPE situation. Since uni days, Hancock's only roles as far as I'm aware have been as a politician and economic advisor; his inexperience and incompetence in relation to operational and practical matters have stood out with him very badly letting the country down concerning PPE. My only grumble for now is that Deighton's appointment should have come earlier; however, that for me sums up so much of this tragic fiasco.

Unfortunately, that seems to be true of the vast majority of our politicians these days, it has suddenly become a profession rather than a vocation. The result is, the country is being run by a political class that have no experience of life outside of politics, do not understand anything practical with regard to business and to whom the average wage per week is the cost of a decent meal for two in Westminster and then probably on expenses. How many politicians of any party have grown up in poverty and worked their way up the ladder and then gone in to politics to try and make life better for all. None that I could name.

Gove, (the back stabber extraordinaire) has now admitted that Johnson missed 5 consecutive corona virus meetings in the build up to the crisis. He was keeping out of the way at Chequers. At the time of the crisis here, we were shipping PPE to China.

Keir Starmer? Maybe he didn't come from poverty but his family certainly wasn't wealthy at all.

[Sponsored content]