The media and covid 19

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Postmanpat 29 Apr 2020

https://www.effiedeans.com/2020/04/journalism-is-missing-mood-country.html

An excerpt

"I have been impressed by a few journalists in the past weeks, but not many...........But journalists for the most part have disgraced themselves.

There are people I usually enjoy reading who frequently make interesting points about society and politics who are simply showing their lack of knowledge today. Too many journalists who think there is only one story to write about skim a few medical journals and then think they are qualified to tell the rest of us what should be done. They go from one extreme to other and pretend to have a knowledge that they don’t.

Twenty-four-hour news programmes are full of relentless negativity. They pick up on one issue such as ventilators go with that for a few days and then obsess about Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Next we get comparisons between countries. This country has more deaths than that country as if it is some sort of Olympic medal table. Why can’t you get PPE? Because everyone else in the world wants it too. But shouldn’t you have prepared? Would you like to apologise for your failure?"

25
In reply to Postmanpat:

I hear you re the hyperbolic nature of modern journalism but don't you think there has been a deep set arrogance in the nature of the cuts to essential services in the years leading up to this? And then there was Exercise Cygnus in 2016 (which predicted how we'd fail in a pandemic) and yet the blood letting continued.

8
 Rob Exile Ward 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not a fan of journalists on the whole but I think politicians have a lot to answer for. The fact that this pandemic has been presented as a successive series of challenges - first ventilators, THEN hospital beds, THEN testing, THEN PPE, THEN Care homes, then ??? is as much down to the politicians as to the journalists. Every day at the news briefing they have focused on a single issue, as though once THAT has been solved everything will be rosy.

6
 John2 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

"skim a few medical journals and then think they are qualified to tell the rest of us what should be done. They go from one extreme to other and pretend to have a knowledge that they don’t"

Not unreminiscent of our own dear prime minister.

8
 krikoman 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not sure, because my memories is shit, but I can't remember you moaning about the media obsessing about  Corbyn.

Try watching a few other channels, RT, France 24 AL Jazeera, even CNN, if you want a different perspective.

Post edited at 12:00
5
cb294 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

I could not read the full link, just the highlighted bit almost made me vomit.

Since when is it the job of journalists to read the mood of the country, and to provide hope?

Questioning the actions of the government, including attributing blame specificically to individual politicians and public servants who failed to do their job before and during the crisis is much more important than spreading feelgood vibes.

What do you want? Stories of "miracle" Covid survivors, or should we immediately go for cute kitten videos so readers need not worry their little heads? To suppress bad news just because the country would like to hear good news seems like deliberate disinformation to me, propaganda not worthy of the free press in a democracy.

No PPE because others want it too? This is why you run pandemic simulations and exercises and, if you are a responsible government, act on the outcome of such exercises and stock up beforehand.

If you cannot be bothered and are then caught with your pants down, at least admit your responsibility. In earlier times, a politician whose laziness and ideological blindness had cost thousands of lives might have retired to his study, asked to be left alone, and have pulled the service revolver from his desk. Today we don't do this anymore, but a public mea culpa followed by immediate resignation and permanent disappearance from public roles would not go amiss.

Of course, higher scientific and mathematical literacy in our journalist collective would not hurt, crisis or not.

CB

5
 wbo2 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:You're right - distinct lack of bulldog spirit and channeling of our own little Dunkirks

Brexit bounce should turn the frowns upside down

3
 toad 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm surprised at you. We need to hold the government, ANY government to account. Covid doesn't care about news reports, so it's hardly succour to the enemy. Those people on the frontline need our support and need to know that where they have been let down, those responsible are being interrogated about those failings and why they happened, and how OUR government will make damn sure they don't happen again.

You wont get any of that with pictures of clapping children or grannies knitting face masks or Boris' bouncing baby

3
 mullermn 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

>there was Exercise Cygnus in 2016 (which predicted how we'd fail in a pandemic) and yet the blood letting continued.

This is not intended as the defence of government policy that it probably sounds like, but I think we should probably bear in mind that the government probably receives reports, feasibility plans and projections for every scenario from Russia starting WW3 to a solar flare wiping out everything with a microchip. This ‘disaster’ has actually happened and so the failure to prepare seems very obvious, but we can’t maintain readiness for all scenarios at all times.

2
 neilh 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

Must admit I have been shocked at some examples of the shoddy journalism /stories on display. The classic for me was reading the list of 100 NHS people who had died....the first ones I read had ....retired from the NHS...and were in their mid 70's.WTF is that about.They were former NHS staff and were pensioners.

It was as though the BBC were scratching around to make up a list of 100 people.

2
 wintertree 29 Apr 2020
In reply to mullermn:

I agree that we can’t prepare sufficiently for every eventuality but the point here is that the Cygnus planning exercise gave us detailed information on where our preparedness fell short and therefore what reasonable advanced actions we could have taken in the 3 month period where it became ever more obvious that a global disaster was unfolding around us and within our borders.

2
In reply to mullermn:

This is true and hindsight is easy to turn to when you've not been the one at the helm - which I haven't. I have always been critical of the ruthlessness of austerity though, yet I never foresaw quite how terrible the consequences of that political exercise would be.

Post edited at 13:03
5
 mondite 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

> There are people I usually enjoy reading who frequently make interesting points about society and politics who are simply showing their lack of knowledge today.

This is an immediate redflag. If I suddenly find myself thinking x is wrong whereas normally I think they are great there are three possibilities.

One is they are talking about a small set of subjects I am reasonably knowledgeable about. In which case I start doubting their other writing.

Two is they are wrong. It happens from time to time.

Three and quite probable even in the first case it might be my bias coming into play and dismissing them because they disagree with one of my core beliefs.

> Too many journalists who think there is only one story to write about skim a few medical journals and then think they are qualified to tell the rest of us what should be done.

Is medical really the exception here? Dont you want to go and look at the other subjects as well. Personally I find most journalists thoughts on technology rather inaccurate.

I do find it somewhat odd this person declares they understand the mood of the nation perfectly and everyone else is a naysayer which they prove by ermm some people retweeting them. Today we are going to be looking at the problem of social media and echo chambers.

I think they should be asking them is it the journalists who have changed or is it just the papers arent being unquestioning supportive. Given the references to remain I think its quite easy to guess their position and why they might not be used to a critical press.

2
 The Lemming 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

Maybe you could watch and advise on this 30 minute clip of journalism?

I'd appreciate your views on the subjects raised?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000hr3y/panorama-has-the-government-...

There is one point in your OP that I do agree with, and that is 24 hour news channels being so toxic to the nation and being a major contributor to a nation's anxiety levels.

For once, I'm glad that the media are banging on about the failings of government and how they have failed in one area of their remit to protect the society that they have been elected to serve and govern.

On a personal observation, we are running out of PPE again. It has been fatally pointed out that a lack of PPE costs lives.

2
 Andy Hardy 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

A little thought experiment for you PP: imagine you are an intensive care nurse who can see the effects of CV-19 every day, and you have had your required PPE downgraded because some penny pinching bean counter wasn't allowed to buy enough of it during the 2 months head start we had over the rest of europe. So now you go to work knowing your exposed to a high load of a pretty nasty virus, and some of your colleagues have started to fall ill. What would make you happier - a nation cheering for 2 minutes every Thursday or the man responsible for your risky situation held to account by, more or less, the only means possible (since parliament was not sitting) i.e. a hack asking awkward questions on live TV?

4
 wercat 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

 are you excusing or an apologist for criminal negligence?

4
 jkarran 29 Apr 2020
In reply to mullermn:

> This is not intended as the defence of government policy that it probably sounds like, but I think we should probably bear in mind that the government probably receives reports, feasibility plans and projections for every scenario from Russia starting WW3 to a solar flare wiping out everything with a microchip. This ‘disaster’ has actually happened and so the failure to prepare seems very obvious, but we can’t maintain readiness for all scenarios at all times.

Indeed but pandemic respiratory diseases aren't a surprise, we had recent warning shots. This risk appears to have been ignored, or more fairly, downplayed for small state ideological reasons.

Perhaps in light of this preventable clusterf*ck we should be fairly urgently asking which other inconvenient credible threat assessments have been filed away in a dusty box in order to keep taxes down.

jk

1
 wercat 29 Apr 2020
In reply to jkarran:

together with the Russia Report. I can see now why Dominic G was so desperate to get ihis committee's report out when it was ready as he knew if it were not done soon then it would disappear

1
baron 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

Look what you’ve started now.  

It’s like the Brexit debate all over again.

In reply to baron:

In what way?

1
In reply to baron:

Indeed, I can't work out if it's all an elaborate troll or not!

1
 Ridge 29 Apr 2020
In reply to mullermn:

> >there was Exercise Cygnus in 2016 (which predicted how we'd fail in a pandemic) and yet the blood letting continued.

> This is not intended as the defence of government policy that it probably sounds like, but I think we should probably bear in mind that the government probably receives reports, feasibility plans and projections for every scenario from Russia starting WW3 to a solar flare wiping out everything with a microchip. This ‘disaster’ has actually happened and so the failure to prepare seems very obvious, but we can’t maintain readiness for all scenarios at all times.

Pandemic has been number one on the National Risk Register for donkey's years. That means it's pretty much nailed on to happen.

The various national resilence agencies do the analysis of the various scenarios, compile the listing and outline planning for them and present them to the government.

The government don't get thosands of reports to sift through and deliberate on.

They get a relatively short list an eight year old could understand with a very clear message that these things are bad, almost certain to happen in the near future and detailed planning, command and control, personnel and equipment need to be in place.

The government have been negligent.

1
baron 29 Apr 2020
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> In what way?

It seems that the combatants in this thread are aligning themselves roughly along the leave/remain axis that we saw in the Brexit threads.

You remember those?

3
OP Postmanpat 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

  The point is not that the media shouldn't be asking questions. It is what questions they ask and how they ask them which is at fault. One of the key problems seems to be that they have used political journalists to lead the stories: Peston, Kuenssberg etc ,although it is not primarily a political story. It is a healthcare and project management story. So the political journalists adopt their usual personality and blame game driven approach to the issue and virtually ignore the real underlying issues.

  We can all agree I think, that we would rather not have started from where we were in terms of supplies etc (although there is a whole counterfactual about what the media would have said when told that billions of quid had been spent on equipment that was never used, or that this had been  happening across the board for numerous potentially major issues).

  You then get into the questions of what it is  actually possible to achieve when faced with an unprecedented global problem? What were the priorities? Were they the right priorities? Were they achievable,? What is achievable? how much of that was achieved? and if not why not?

  The journalists have essentially  ignored most of the first few questions (which are, funnily enough the main responsibilies of ministers), homed in on the last (which are not), but made very little attempt to analyse it. It's easier for them to pretend that ministers are project and logistics managers and therefore responsible for every failure (but not the success) of projects and logistics management. In reality Ministers sit on top of large cumbersome bureacracies totally unsuited to the sort of rapid response being demanded and and depend on them both for information and advice on what is required and  what is possible and the execution of a strategy when it is agreed.

  Arguably, after a difficult start, (partly because organisations like PHE and parts of the NHS were philosophically and in practical terms not geared up to work with private providers and collaborators) incredible strides have been made across the piece in moving things forward. That is  credit largely to those working in those organisations. I've listened in on a couple of conference calls (more on testing and vaccinations than PPE) and have been hugely impressed by the speed and forethought and cooperation of the teams of scientists and so forth on the ground working through these issues).

  No doubt when the public inquiry takes place they will find that Ministers made mistakes. Of course they did. But the much bigger issue will be whether the organisations and chains of command responsible for designing , managing, and executing the strategy, were effective and, if not, how this can be improved for the next time.

  The media simply haven't done their job in looking at these issues. They've simplified it down to a few binary topics and when they get simplified answers in return complain that they don't get the truth. The truth is NOT simple. It's very complex and they don't want to hear that.

I recognise that the usual suspects will regard this merely as an attempt to shift the blame from the evil Tory government. As the article implies, nothing will ever change that perception .  It's not. It's a knowingly futile attempt to get people to think objectively about the very difficult issues rather than through their politically tinted spectacles.

Post edited at 14:00
2
In reply to Postmanpat:

You don't class yourself as a 'usual suspect' I note and imply your spectacles are tint free - It must be nice in your bubble.

3
 jkarran 29 Apr 2020
In reply to baron:

> It seems that the combatants in this thread are aligning themselves roughly along the leave/remain axis that we saw in the Brexit threads.

Not much surprise there given this is a single issue brexit government found wanting. Of course I was never kindly disposed toward them but nor am I critical of the CV response because of their brexit position, except of course where one appears quite unbelievably to have negatively impacted the other!

jk

1
 Ridge 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

The problem is it isn't a failure of 'healthcare and project management'. No one expects Pritti Patel to be driving a forklift or Boris Johnson to understand purchasing.  It's a failure of planning for an entirely predicable scenario.

Yes, ventilators and CPAP machines can't be bought of the shelf. But basic PPE? It has a shelf life measured in years and is in constant use, it's not exactly difficult to feed stock in and out of contingency stores.

In reply to baron:

> It seems that the combatants in this thread are aligning themselves roughly along the leave/remain axis that we saw in the Brexit threads.

And what insights or conclusions are you taking from this...?

baron 29 Apr 2020
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> And what insights or conclusions are you taking from this...?

None.

For once I’m going to sit back and enjoy the show.

 The Lemming 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

> Indeed, I can't work out if it's all an elaborate troll or not!


I don't, or would not even hesitate to think that PP was trolling over this subject.

I would assume that he was preoccupied with something outside the virtual world of UKC and could not respond to the points raised by us.

And I don't think this subject is like Brexit or that people aligning along a polarising brevity argument of the last 4 years.

Government had years to prepare for a style of pandemic. They compiled a report in 2016, of our preparedness or lack of preparednesd. Government even stockpiled some PPE but either lost it, misplaced it or left the responsibility to capitalist market forces to select the lowest bidder for the task, which has been part of Tory DNA since the 80s.

We could even ask why government downgraded advice to NHS staff about the type and amount of PPE must wear to stay safe as stocks became lower and lower on a weekly basis?

Did the virus become less dangerous as the weeks passed and the government moved heaven and earth to seek PPE. Did the scientific advice change to say that the virus was not as deadly any more to warrant a down grading of PPE to match the dwindling availability of PPE?

Maybe we could ask government how they are going to help the Care Work industry that is looking after the nation's parents and grandparents in buildings that are fast becoming Death Camps for occupants and staff who are not stupid or ignorant to what fate awaits them over the coming months?

To make matters even more dire, the government were given, quite literally, two month's breathing space to plan and prepare for a pandemic which they saw start half way round the world and slowly and relentlessly march towards our island shores.

Even when the pandemic hit our shores, because of the nature of fast and efficient transportation that knows no boundaries, the government dragged their political feet to deal with the oncoming disaster.

Labour is not in government and even with a weak and unelectable leader such as Corbyn, this is not an excuse that either Postman Pat or the Tories can fall back on. The opposition was weak, so we did not need to up our game?

Was the Tory objective simply to score more goals than the other team just to keep power and then not worry how they would deal with big f*cking questions on how to keep the population healthy and safe?

I very much look forward to Postman Pat diligently pick my reply apart line by line, as he tends to do in defence of the Tory's way of life?

2
In reply to baron:

OK- just wondered why you’d taken the trouble of drawing our attention to it...

enjoy the show then!

OP Postmanpat 29 Apr 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

> Maybe you could watch and advise on this 30 minute clip of journalism?

> I'd appreciate your views on the subjects raised?

  I preface this by saying I recognise this is a subject very close to your heart and I respect your role in dealing with the crisis.

  It's a very shallow piece of journalism. It highlights the shortage of PPE (which nobody doubts but is a totally valid thing to highlight). It highlights that the stockpile was insufficient but makes not real attempt to understand why. It has a well known anti government activist as it's main talking head, ironically arguing that the goverment's source of advice was too narrow. It blames every problem on something called "the government" but doesn't actually explain what that means:Boris Johnson, or the department of Health, or PHE, or NHS providers or all of them?

  There was a perfect opportunity, in a documentary of this length, to identify how the system is meant to work , which parts of it have responsibility for what and which parts may have made which decisions. ie In addition to highlighting the very serious problems to try and uunravel and to educate the audience on why there are so many problems and even push for specific solutions.

  Instead it set out (and I know this because they called an acquaintance of mine asking his organisation to participate) simply to target some unspecified entity called "the government'' without any really addressing the issues. In short, it wasn't an investigative documentary. It was a polemic and a missed opportunity.

Post edited at 14:43
In reply to Postmanpat:

I can see both sides of this argument.  The Government, the opposition and the media have a lot to answer for. Apparently there was an exercise in 2016 which predicted much of what is now happening.  It's disgrace the Government did not act on it, it's a disgrace that the opposition did not question in Parliament why they had not acted on it and it's a disgrace that the media seemed to have ignored it up until now.

Al

1
 Stichtplate 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

You only need to have been on the periphery of any big story to know that journalism has always been shoddy. When fingers meet keyboard veracity has always come a long way behind good copy and everyone knows happiness writes white so negativity will always beat positivity. 

But saying all that, the government has been dire. To be caught with your pants down in the face of a once in a century event is understandable but to then to be found constantly lying, dragging feet and consistently displaying incredibly poor grasp of data and zero grip on events is unforgivable. People are dying unnecessarily and there are leaders in high profile, highly paid positions who need to be held to account. That is the job of the media because if it's left up to the government it'll be gongs and honours all round when this is done, not censure and P45s that their actual performance deserves.

3
cb294 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Because the Tory government classified the report - against all precedent - precisely because it demonstrated their criminal negligence?

But of course this is all the opposition's fault, especially the bit about doing f*ck all with respect to the conclusions in the years before the epidemic eventually hit and the months it then took to spread from China.

CB

3
 mullermn 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Ridge:

Good points, and as I say I'm not planning to die in a ditch to defend the government (Boris claimed the space first).

I would observe that nearly all governments seem to have done a similarly shite job of dealing with this (or at least, we don't stand out as an exceptionally worse case) but more critically: in our last election the government, with a transparent platform of cost cutting, off the back of a long demonstration period about what that cost cutting entails got voted in by a massive margin over the two other main parties who were both explicitly proposing to fund things better.

The government asked us if we wanted state contingency cut to the bone and 'we' repeatedly and loudly said yes.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Pat, that looks a bit too much like you’re deploying a straw man. Plenty of people don’t think that the Tories are by their nature just evil; but do think that the preparation and response to this situation has fallen well short of being acceptable; myself included.

re your point about the preparation counterfactual- justifying expense on preparations that never get used- that’s exactly the role of government; and they’ve had 50 years of experience in doing exactly this, to the tune of billions per year, in relation to our independent nuclear deterrent.

this is not an anti nuclear point; the point is that there are certain low likelihood/very high consequence risks  that governments do feel entirely comfortable defending. The risks of a global respiratory virus pandemic causing severe disruption to have been much higher than a nuclear conflict with Russia for over a decade. If we could justify paying for Trident (and I’m happy to accept that we could), then  we could certainly justify the expense of holding larger stocks of PPE and ventilators, and having a system to immediately source more which could be activated immediately. That we didn’t is a catastrophic failure of government.

1
 neilh 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Ridge:

Face masks , which are pretty basic , have a surprisingly short shelf life............................if you actually have a look at the dates

Post edited at 15:12
 John2 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

'it is not primarily a political story. It is a healthcare and project management story'

It does have substantial political aspects, though. Boris was proudly boasting about shaking hands with Covid patients when he visited a hospital - one could reasonably question his judgement.

Moreover, at a stage when other European countries had already adopted stricter lockdown regimes than we have so far, he was talking about squashing sombreros. Of course, this was in response to the advice of one of his experts, but I'm sure there were other experts advising a different course of action at the time. As Dominic Raab make clear while Boris was recuperating, the big decisions are actually taken by Boris. Many might think it best to take the most cautious initial course of action when faced with a potentially calamitous pandemic.

 jkarran 29 Apr 2020
In reply to mullermn:

> I would observe that nearly all governments seem to have done a similarly shite job of dealing with this (or at least, we don't stand out as an exceptionally worse case) but more critically: 

Except all those, mainly out east (in Europe and Asia) that haven't, that were prepared or that responded promptly so their preparedness wasn't tested too hard.

>in our last election the government, with a transparent platform of cost cutting, off the back of a long demonstration period about what that cost cutting entails got voted in by a massive margin over the two other main parties who were both explicitly proposing to fund things better.

> The government asked us if we wanted state contingency cut to the bone and 'we' repeatedly and loudly said yes.

The government asked if we wanted something called brexit which we were told would be wonderful, not much more or less, 'get brexit done' oh and a bit of a spending spree in't norf. The hard-right of the Conservative party came along for the ride on the populist brexit wave, their absurd majority delivered by carefully targeting a minority of the electorate while the opposition vacated the field to self harm in obscurity.

jk

Post edited at 15:19
1
In reply to cb294:

Apologies.  I was trying to be apolitical about this.  You should try it sometime, it's liberating

Al

 mullermn 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

The public: 'The government should have prepared for this risk! Why were they so reckless!'

Also the public: 'I've missed a paycheck and now I'm completely and totally f*cked as I have made no preparation at all for myself. Bail me out!'

6
cb294 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

How can you be apolitical about an intrinsically political issue? It is simply not possible, and blaming all sides is taking the side of the incumbents (which is a point one may hold, but preferrably backed up by argument). In fact, I am pretty much in favour what the conservative CSU government in Bavaria do, even if have never and will never vote for that lot.

IMO being apolitical in times of crisis amounts to a dereliction of our civic duties, even if there is no imminent election. I do not claim that looking at current events through a political lense is enjoyable. In contrast, it is rather depressing to open the newspaper in the morning ( I have pretty much tuned out of TV evening news, much too shallow...).

Unfortunately, in the current lockdown not even football or climbing manage to remain apolitical topics: Shutting these activities down and discussing exit strategies from that are clearly political.

The only thing to get away from all this crap is watching the old World Cup highlights German TV puts on every weekend instead of the matchday reports.

Fortunately we have plenty of these to fill a long lockdown!

CB

 Harry Jarvis 29 Apr 2020
In reply to mullermn:

> The government asked us if we wanted state contingency cut to the bone and 'we' repeatedly and loudly said yes.

In this case, true leadership from Government would have involved Government saying that they were going to do the right thing, regardless of its popularity at the ballot box.

 Harry Jarvis 29 Apr 2020
In reply to mullermn:

> Also the public: 'I've missed a paycheck and now I'm completely and totally f*cked as I have made no preparation at all for myself. Bail me out!'

Can you explain how for example a 22-year old recent graduate with sizeable student loan debts is supposed to make sufficient preparations to withstand a prolonged period of redundancy without Government help? Or a minimum-wage cleaner or shelf-stacker, struggling to make ends meet? There is no doubt that there will be those who should have done more for themselves, but there are also many on whom we rely who have no choice but to live a hand-to-mouth existence. 

1
 tcashmore 29 Apr 2020
In reply to mullermn:

> >there was Exercise Cygnus in 2016 (which predicted how we'd fail in a pandemic) and yet the blood letting continued.

> This is not intended as the defence of government policy that it probably sounds like, but I think we should probably bear in mind that the government probably receives reports, feasibility plans and projections for every scenario from Russia starting WW3 to a solar flare wiping out everything with a microchip. This ‘disaster’ has actually happened and so the failure to prepare seems very obvious, but we can’t maintain readiness for all scenarios at all times.

The most balanced point I have read on this forums in a long while !  

Take PPE for example, I wouldn’t know how much to calculate that is required to stock for this ‘type’ of pandemic without knowing what type of pandemic it was !  They can take a best guess I assume and was probably wrong. Anyhow, demand has increased by 5000% and there is a global fight to get stocks.

 Stichtplate 29 Apr 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Face masks , which are pretty basic , have a surprisingly short shelf life............................if you actually have a look at the dates

The actual dates of face masks my colleagues were using last night were 'use before 2009'. Three lots of overlaid re-validation stickers brought the 'use before' date up to 2019. These masks were manufactured in 2005... bit of a stretch to call that "a surprisingly short shelf life".

1
 Andy Hardy 29 Apr 2020
In reply to mullermn:

> The government asked us if we wanted state contingency cut to the bone and 'we' repeatedly and loudly said yes.

Except "we" didn't. Among our many failings as a nation, the biggest, to me is our electoral system. Which in the case of the current incumbents secured an 80 seat majority with less than half of the votes cast. 

3
In reply to cb294:

Thanks for pointing out my irresponsibility.  I'm trying to be apolitical in my comments not my convictions.  You are obviously a far superior being than I am

Al

 neilh 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

So perhaps they have a surprisingly long shelf life when push comes to shove and they have to be revalidated.I just happened to have one on my desk ( they are used in alot of industrial applications as I am sure you are well aware of by now) so wondered what the shelf life was and surprised how short it was.

 Stichtplate 29 Apr 2020
In reply to neilh:

> So perhaps they have a surprisingly long shelf life when push comes to shove and they have to be revalidated.I just happened to have one on my desk ( they are used in alot of industrial applications as I am sure you are well aware of by now) so wondered what the shelf life was and surprised how short it was.

The issue isn't the fabric of the masks or the HEPA filters, it's the elastic strapping vital to provide a safe and secure fit. Small amounts bought in for industrial use aren't going to get manufacturers revalidating them. That only happens with huge quantities that have been cached as pandemic stocks.

Edit: I should add that this is relevant in highlighting that the government can't play the 'short shelf life' card when explaining why it was impractical to maintain adequate emergency stockpiles. The logistics are simpler than the initial date stamped on the kit would imply.

Post edited at 16:08
cb294 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

I am trying to engage in a reasonable discussion, but it you don't want to, so be it. But again, any comment that "apolitically" deals with a political issue is itself political.

CB

cb294 29 Apr 2020
In reply to tcashmore:

> Anyhow, demand has increased by 5000% and there is a global fight to get stocks.

Absolutely, it was totally impossible to predict that demand would rise worldwide in the most likely pandemic scenarios. Anyway, no one had corona or influenza viruses on their list as possible causes for the next pandemic. Thus, no one could have guessed that having a reasonable amount of the stuff in store might be helpful.

Nothing to see here, move on everybody.....

CB

1
 neilh 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

I think we are talking at cross purposes. All I did was comment on a fask masks having a shorter shelf life than people thought as there was an earlier comment about PPE having very long shelf lifes( which is clearly as you say not the case).

In reply to cb294:

Apologies I went into defensive mode because you implied I was irresponsible. I need to grow a thicker skin if I am to continue contributing to UKC

Al

Pan Ron 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I'm not a fan of journalists on the whole but I think politicians have a lot to answer for. The fact that this pandemic has been presented as a successive series of challenges - first ventilators, THEN hospital beds, THEN testing, THEN PPE, THEN Care homes, then ??? is as much down to the politicians as to the journalists. Every day at the news briefing they have focused on a single issue, as though once THAT has been solved everything will be rosy.

Has there been a ventilator shortage in the end? 

Are we lacking hospital beds? 

What exactly is the issue with care homes?

3
cb294 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Apologies here as well, should have been clearer!

CB

 The Lemming 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

>  Instead it set out (and I know this because they called an acquaintance of mine asking his organisation to participate) simply to target some unspecified entity called "the government'' without any really addressing the issues. In short, it wasn't an investigative documentary. It was a polemic and a missed opportunity.

I'd agree with that. It was only 30 minutes long and I watched before going to bed this morning. Hopefully the journalists amateurish and blundering questions will allow politicians to form more insightful and surgically probing questions to hold the government to account.

Admittedly my last reply timed 14-32 was when I'd just woken up, and it was more of an incoherant rambling thought process, much like Trump treats his Press Meetings with the world's cameras recording his every blue-sky thought.

However I'd love to hear your thoughts on how the government has dealt with this global disaster?

Irrespective on your thoughts of how journalists have performed in being paid to move their jaws up and down and crudely formulate questions to a complex problem that they can't fully grasp, what are your thoughts on my questions and how the government in general has dealt with this global pandemic from the very first moment they knew until the present moment?

Thank you for those kind words at the start of your reply. They are much appreciated.

In reply to Pan Ron:

> Has there been a ventilator shortage in the end? 

No - because they chased after the wrong thing and used competitions to design a useless Heath Robinson ventilator in ten minutes as a distraction for the media.

It wouldn't matter if they had far more ventilators because they don't have the ICU nurses to manage that many patients on ventilation and the death rate even with carefully selected patients is very high once ventilation is needed.

> Are we lacking hospital beds? 

No - because we aren't letting large groups of people into hospital in the first place and they are dying in care homes and at home instead.

> What exactly is the issue with care homes?

Large numbers of people are dying in them and conveniently not being included in the headline numbers used for inter-country comparisons so it isn't as obvious how sh*t the UK's handling has been.

4
 elsewhere 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Has there been a ventilator shortage in the end? 

No, but that's due to good luck with the nature of the virus rather than the government delivering on their promises based on what they thought might be required. 

> Are we lacking hospital beds? 

No. The emergency hospitals might be the one thing they have actually delivered, unlike ventilators, testing & PPE.

> What exactly is the issue with care homes?

Death

Post edited at 16:28
4
 Bob Kemp 29 Apr 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> Not much surprise there given this is a single issue brexit government found wanting. Of course I was never kindly disposed toward them but nor am I critical of the CV response because of their brexit position, except of course where one appears quite unbelievably to have negatively impacted the other!

This guy is one of a number who've suggested that the coronavirus has become a new front in the ongoing culture war - 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-brexit-culture-war-boris-j...

Pan Ron 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

Seems you've stirred up a hornet's nest of people who can't distinguish between newspaper spin and "holding government to account". 

Perhaps the armchair experts can put their money where their mouths are and agree a strategy for what we must do in X days time?  Then carry the can for the economic, political and social cost if things don't quite go as they claim.

While journalists scream abut Boris not attending COBRA meetings, racist responses to covid19, or how this or that will show the Brexiteers....the non-journalists at ILO have quietly noted 1.25 billion workers in high-risk sectors face “drastic and devastating” increases in layoffs and reductions in wages and working hours.  I.e. potential starvation in much of the world.  But hey, let's keep staring at the tips of our noses

11
 neilh 29 Apr 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

Good luck?? You do not get good luck . its is more like a different method of treatment is being used which stops people going on ventitlators. if you look at worldometer stats you will note that the UK's figures for critical is really low.

It will probably becuase a good best practise is being adopted across the hospitals in the UK.

Care homes is a bit of an issue for all countrys including the recording of deaths.

 The Lemming 29 Apr 2020
In reply to mullermn:

> I would observe that nearly all governments seem to have done a similarly shite job of dealing with this (or at least, we don't stand out as an exceptionally worse case)

Its fair to say that Grease is one of the poorest EU countries and was hit exceptionally hard when the World Banking crisis hit around 2008.

How do you think this country is fairing right now with how it is dealing with the pandemic?

If there is a wide disparity in the number of deaths, considering the pandemic hit both countries at the same time, why would this be?

And as a quiz question how many deaths has Greece had to date from corona virus?

1
Pan Ron 29 Apr 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

Perhaps what journalists should be hammering home is how pointless it is to be comparing country to country right now.  How cherry-picking data to suit your angle is irresponsible.  Then again, journalists are unlikely to get held to account for their reporting, other than a small retraction on page 8, and everyone will have moved on not long after anyway.

4
Pan Ron 29 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Ok, so we've established that there is no shortage of ventilators and there is no shortage of hospital beds.  There may be a shortage of nurses however.  That's at least a clarification.

If you're going to give the government stick, at least attack them for something they are guilty of.  Bit a strawman to hold them responsible for something that never occurred.

1
 The Lemming 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Perhaps what journalists should be hammering home is how pointless it is to be comparing country to country right now. 

I'd like journalist to be hammering home that cabinet ministers are in the spotlight and those ministers should reflect on what they have done so far and that they should start improving their efforts. You and I, don't have the luxury of procrastinating until the next election comes along before looking busy for the media to gain votes to keep our jobs.

1
 Stichtplate 29 Apr 2020
In reply to neilh:

> I think we are talking at cross purposes.

Sorry, I was trying to provide clarification for you but I can see how it might look like I was arguing with you (it's not like I don't have form ).

>All I did was comment on a fask masks having a shorter shelf life than people thought as there was an earlier comment about PPE having very long shelf lifes( which is clearly as you say not the case).

As with most stuff, it isn't straight forward. Most PPE actually has a very, very long functional shelf life. It's obviously not in the manufacturers interest to stick a best case scenario date on their kit so testing is stringent. They'll typically take a product and expose it to relatively high levels of heat, humidity and UV and calculate a use by date accordingly. Most kit stored in the UK isn't going to get anything like the hammering tested kit receives.

Post edited at 16:55
1
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Ok, so we've established that there is no shortage of ventilators and there is no shortage of hospital beds.  There may be a shortage of nurses however.  That's at least a clarification.

There's no shortage of hospital beds because they aren't letting lots of sick people go to hospital and they are dying outside of it.   This is not a triumph of government policy.

> If you're going to give the government stick, at least attack them for something they are guilty of.  Bit a strawman to hold them responsible for something that never occurred.

They are guilty of the second worst handling of Covid in the world after the US resulting in about 46K 'excess deaths' *so far* compared to previous years.  That is more than the Blitz (43k deaths).

5
cb294 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Perhaps the armchair experts can put their money where their mouths are and agree a strategy for what we must do in X days time?  Then carry the can for the economic, political and social cost if things don't quite go as they claim.

No, this is what government is for, except that the carrying the can bit seems to have fallen out of fashion. Much easier to blame the evil MSM or the media.

CB

3
 John2 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

What about the incident of the aircraft full of PPE from Turkey that Robert Jenrick said was going to arrive the next day?

1
 elsewhere 29 Apr 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Good luck?? You do not get good luck . its is more like a different method of treatment is being used which stops people going on ventitlators. if you look at worldometer stats you will note that the UK's figures for critical is really low.

They failed to deliver on a promise based on an anticipated requirement but due to a quirk of the virus the anticipated scenario requiring more ventilators didn't happen. It wasn't good government planning that created the quirk of how the virus infects people and what the best treatment is.

1
 neilh 29 Apr 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You should speak to the French, Italians and Spanish before us.I am stunned that there is not more reporting about the situation in France.

Ther agian people do focus on what is local.

cb294 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

Comparing countries with respect to outcome is highly pertinent and the best measure for vaildating the efficacy of the different approaches. You cannot compare what happened in some country with what would have happened there had another party been in power.


Overall, for post hoc evaluation of the response, excess mortality is a good parameter. The curve for England in particular proves that the measures taken by the Tory government were ineffective in comparison with other, similar countries.

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps#z-scores-by-country

This does not directly show why there is a difference, but it is clear who is responsible.

CB

1
 Ridge 29 Apr 2020
In reply to neilh:

> Face masks , which are pretty basic , have a surprisingly short shelf life............................if you actually have a look at the dates

IIRC around 5 years for a disposable half mask (3M), 10 years for replaceable filter. 

Post edited at 17:07
 neilh 29 Apr 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

No they figured out a better way of doing it.Its not luck or a quik.

 Harry Jarvis 29 Apr 2020
In reply to cb294:

They are very dramatic graphs, and do demonstrate very clearly the degree to which England is an outlier. 

 elsewhere 29 Apr 2020
In reply to neilh:

> No they figured out a better way of doing it.Its not luck or a quik.

That was not luck for those who figured it out.

That this was possible was lucky for the government who did not deliver what they thought might be needed.

That this was possible was lucky for those who might have needed the ventilators that the government thought might be needed.

Post edited at 17:26
1
 mondite 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Ok, so we've established that there is no shortage of ventilators and there is no shortage of hospital beds.  There may be a shortage of nurses however.  That's at least a clarification.

Yes well done you chose two things where the government hasnt entirely failed. I do love how you casually brush aside both care homes and the nurses. Not much point having the gadgets if you dont have the operators is there?

> If you're going to give the government stick, at least attack them for something they are guilty of.  Bit a strawman to hold them responsible for something that never occurred.

Talking about strawmen I like your lift and shift to "ventilators being needed" vs "ventilators the government said they were going to deliver but werent".  The latter, despite not being needed, isnt a success for the government.

3
 neilh 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

The graphs at the top say must be treated with caution. ..........!

 HansStuttgart 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   No doubt when the public inquiry takes place they will find that Ministers made mistakes. Of course they did. But the much bigger issue will be whether the organisations and chains of command responsible for designing , managing, and executing the strategy, were effective and, if not, how this can be improved for the next time.

This. UK politics and media is so much about personalities and so little about structural issues.

 krikoman 29 Apr 2020
In reply to mullermn:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/sep/18/a-deadly-virus-c...

And sometime just after this, the banks actually did some preparation work in planning for a pandemic.

So there are steps we could and should have taken, it's not like a pandemic of some sort wasn't on the horizon, much more likely than WWW3 with the Russkies.

I take you point we can't cover ever base, but there should have been a planned response to this and Exercise Cygnus should have been acted upon.

 neilh 29 Apr 2020
In reply to HansStuttgart:

Best comment I have read all week

OP Postmanpat 29 Apr 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

> Irrespective on your thoughts of how journalists have performed in being paid to move their jaws up and down and crudely formulate questions to a complex problem that they can't fully grasp, what are your thoughts on my questions and how the government in general has dealt with this global pandemic from the very first moment they knew until the present moment?

>

   Well, I really don't want to get into  an argument about  what has happened and who's responsibility it is (that's not directed to you!). Also, I am unclear what you, or anyone else means by "government". Does it mean only elected representives? Or the healthcare bureacracy etc etc?

  Frankly,I don't think we know enough about who did what or even how are outcomes compare to other countries and why (simple numerical comparisons, even the excess mortaility figures) can be explained by all sorts of different factors.

  Currently, I would probably give the overall response 6-7 out of 10. I don't recognise the clusterf*ck that some see but there have obviously and predictably been mistakes. The key targets: flattening the curve and avoiding a meltdown of the NHS appear to have been achieved. There will be arguments about whether lock down was too late etc but given that other countries have no proper lockdown(Sweden) or a lighter touch  (the Netherlands) and seem to have had less cases I am not sure that this is clear even now.

  The UK, and London in particular, is one of the busiest cities, especially,  in terms of visitors in the world. It would be a miracle if it hadn't had a high rate of infection.

  The main failing seems to have been in the supply and distribution of PPE but we don't have quantifiable numbers on this (I've never actually heard the media ask for actual figues on estimated requirements on this but maybe they have). Nor do we understand exactly whether the problem was solvable and if so how. I can't find it now but I read a piece saying that Hancock order the activation of  the emergency ordering process on Jan 30th, which seems reasonably timely, but the system didn't work in the circumstances. If that date is correct, it seems that the Minister was aware at that stage that preparations needed to be scaled up and the process began.

  The other question and potentially key failing surrounds background preparedness (which has been raised on this thread). My guess (and that's all it is) is that like most governments, long term needs had been sacrificed to short term imperatives on the assumption that it "wouldn't happen on their watch" and that this had been going on for years. But I am not clear whether a better stockpile would have made a significant difference to outcomes. Nor am I clear at what level these decisions are made and on what advice.

 John2 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

But the government have repeatedly been claiming that things are better than they actually are. Plane loads of PPE have not arrived when promised, the promised numbers of CV19 tests have repeatedly turned out to be fantasy, death statistics have not included deaths in nursing homes, the government has U-turned on the 'squashed sombrero' plan, we are rapidly ascending the international table of CV19 deaths per head of population. I agree that it's too early to definitively compare our infection and death rates with the rest of the world, but we have no reason to feel happy with our governmental response. This is in no way to decry the response of the NHS - they have been doing their best to make use of the resources at their disposal.

7
 elsewhere 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

Here's where PPE stockpile might have made a significant difference.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/nhs-workers-died-coronavirus-frontline-v...

1
 The Lemming 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    Well, I really don't want to get into  an argument about  what has happened and who's responsibility it is (that's not directed to you!).

Where's the fun in that?

This is a forum of armchair experts,  with the luxury of hindsight to snipe comments. However this shitstorm is playing out in real-time all around the globe with the disadvantage of working to a biological clock and not that of a social media "I want results yesterday, I know my rights" time-frame, that people now demand and expect with the advances of digitally sharing information.

This country's ministers have the luxury of using hindsight to plan their next moves, in relation to countries that are a few weeks ahead of them in this pandemic. Lets not brood on the past, because that game is lost, and look at other countries and try to improve on their decision making process.

Rather that the opposition demanding to see plans for ending the lockdown, at this moment, lets observe how other countries plan and then take the best ideas and improve on them?

Above all we, as a global community, need to have a serious conversation on what is most important, saving the economy or saving everybody with boomeranging lockdowns?

Post edited at 20:06
OP Postmanpat 29 Apr 2020
In reply to John2:

> But the government have repeatedly been claiming that things are better than they actually are.

>

  Government messaging was mixed and that was a failing, not helped by the attack dog media. You are seriously referring to one plane load and extrapolating from that??Interestingly, apparently Hancock argued against mentioning specific deliveries etc for the obvious reasons-they might go wrong. He was overruled by those who thought the necessity of showing they were doing something was more important. A presentational mistake but hardly the end of the world. Have you honestly been suckered into thinking that a presentational mistake over many many order/flights/ etc tells you anything except that is was f*cking hard.

  CV19 tests: when have they turned out to be fantasy? I listened to a bunch of scientists last week saying that in capacity terms it's a done deal and others were working on the roll out. Incredibly impressive teamwork.

Sombero plan? No U turn. It's been achieved.

Care home deaths: do you seriously think that monitoring and categorising such data over many thousand such places is easy, or that the lack of the data was deliberate obfuscation? (that you might actually believe either is what makes me despair)

On the PPE, I hear from medics that one of the problems is that the UK is setting very high standards about what they will accept.

Would you want this to change?

3
 elsewhere 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Would you want this to change?

A bit (lot) more prepared.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/28/exercise-cygnus-uncovered-pande...

 George Ormerod 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

The UK looks a bit of a mess from the outside.  I think you're being too sensitive: Its inconceivable that if Canada, where I live, were seeing UK level per capita death rates the press would no be asking the Federal (Liberal) the Provincial (every political shade) Governments similar pointed questions.  They already are on care home deaths.  The difference is that here the leaders seem to be clear communicators, honest with the public and willing to admit their mistakes.  This includes the Conservative governments in Alberta and Ontario, who I'd be delighted to be able to criticize, but can't. 

3
In reply to Postmanpat:

Re preparedness: I think you are correct on your assumption of sacrificing long term needs. I think it’s interesting though that retaining Trident and the capacity to project air power anywhere on the planet are protected even through austerity, on the basis that circumstances we can’t imagine may develop which require this capability some time in the next 50 years (and fair enough, that’s plenty of time for the world to change); but that the potential consequences of a highly infectious respiratory virus outbreak didn’t excite ministers’ attention sufficiently to enough to warrant ensuring our contingency plans were effective- even though the chance they’d be needed was much higher than Trident would be. Whether that’s a failure of the relevant specialists to communicate the potential consequences effectively to ministers, or a failure of ministers to believe the seriousness of what they were hearing, will be a key question for the eventual enquiry- but the first duty of government is to protect the safety of their citizens, and the abject failure of preparation for this is inexcusable. Ever since then they’ve been trying to catch up; but that’s just not possible as the disease moves too quickly, and the rest of the world is looking for the same stuff. 

3
 Greenbanks 29 Apr 2020
In reply to neilh:

“the first ones I read had ....retired from the NHS...and were in their mid 70's.WTF is that about”

Whatever the context, you’d do well to mind your language. What indeed was it all about? Someone’s wife, mother, brother, partner, best friend, that’s what. 

How quickly do we lose sight of the human when we are bean counting and point-scoring

2
 John2 29 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not just extrapolating from one plane load, I'm saying that the minister was clearly wrong to say what he did. There is the continuing argument over why we were not part of the EU plan for PPE.

Testing numbers - 30th March government claim that 10,000 a day were being tested. Not so. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-testing-uk-daily... . The figure of 10,000 was promised on 11th March. Mid -April target of 25,000 per day not reached https://www.ft.com/content/df7ddb5b-0fd8-43a0-b6e3-2e0e21b0a024 . Remains to be seen whether we will reach 100,00 per day by end of month.

Sombrero squashing - it was not until March 23rd that the current lockdown measures were introduced https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/18/coronavirus-uk-lockdown-start-will-end-12574... . France had implemented a stricter lockdown a week earlier. There was a sudden change from implementing Chris Whitty's advice to implementing that of Neil Ferguson.

I'm not suggesting that the government were deliberately concealing care home deaths, but I am saying that now that we are officially acknowledging them it has become clear that we are one of the most seriously affected countries in the world.

I still think that Boris was foolish to boast about shaking the hands of coronavirus patients.

3
In reply to mullermn:

> but I think we should probably bear in mind that the government probably receives reports, feasibility plans and projections for every scenario

Global pandemic has been at the top of national threat register for years.

1
 DancingOnRock 29 Apr 2020
In reply to John2:

>There was a sudden change from implementing Chris Whitty's advice to implementing that of Neil Ferguson.

There appeared to be a sudden change. What happened was they saw a spike in Italian deaths amongst young people. This was because the younger people were resisting the virus for longer before needing hospital treatment. At the same time, the spread in the U.K. community had reached a point it couldn’t be contained using track and trace and hospital admissions indicated that it was time for lockdown to protect the NHS. 
 

On the subject of PPE, even if we had stockpiled, how much do you stockpile, and what do you stockpile, if you don’t actually know what type of disease is going to breakout? And at what point would it run out? Looks like we are running out now, so stockpiled PPE will only last so long. 
 

As for deaths in care homes, this is terrible, but my understanding is that this is where a large proportion of people go for ‘End of life care’, they wouldn’t be admitted to hospital for serious illness anyway. They’re not being held in homes to protect the NHS.

1
OP Postmanpat 29 Apr 2020
In reply to John2:

  You’re extrapolating from mistakes in presentation which in the greater scheme of things are just tomorrow’s chip paper. Why do they happen? Over ambition? Crossed wires? Unreliable civil servants? Bad PR advice? Bad calls by ministers? Lies? Who knows? 
   In the greater scheme of things they make no difference to outcome beyond enabling the media to spin.

  Re the change of policy on lockdown: when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?

Anyway, enough. If you think you know the best policy and how it should have been executed, so be it. I don’t,

Post edited at 23:03
2
 elsewhere 29 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

PPE is not specific to a disease. They haven't invented new PPE for Covid19.

How much etc - that's what you have experts and exercises for (Exercise Cygnus). 

I think average stay in care home is 3 years so not end of life. Under normal circumstances they are definitely admitted to hospital, my mother certainly was.

1
 DancingOnRock 29 Apr 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

But the figures for the outcomes of the elderly that are emerging in the last few hours are sober reading.
 

45% of all people in ICU are dying. 33% of people entering hospital are dying. 

The elderly are even worse and they’re suggesting that sending them to hospital with CV is just prolonging the inevitable. 

 DancingOnRock 29 Apr 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

>PPE is not specific to a disease. They haven't invented new PPE for Covid19.

It depends on the infectiousness of the disease as to how much you need and to what level for each environment though. If the disease had been airboure PPE would have been pointless. We would be in a lot more trouble. 

2
 balmybaldwin 29 Apr 2020
In reply to mullermn:

> >there was Exercise Cygnus in 2016 (which predicted how we'd fail in a pandemic) and yet the blood letting continued.

> This is not intended as the defence of government policy that it probably sounds like, but I think we should probably bear in mind that the government probably receives reports, feasibility plans and projections for every scenario from Russia starting WW3 to a solar flare wiping out everything with a microchip. This ‘disaster’ has actually happened and so the failure to prepare seems very obvious, but we can’t maintain readiness for all scenarios at all times.


Then what is the point of running the hugely expensive test scenarios like Cygnus if it isn't to learn from them?

We seem happy to plow billions into a few fireworks on a sub despite having the most heavily armed big brother in the world, so why wouldn't we be prepared for a newly emerging disease that is really quite likely to happen and has done repeatedly in recent memory albeit with less than feared results (SARS, MERS, Ebola, Pig Flu, H1N1 - all in the last 20 years)

 elsewhere 29 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> It depends on the infectiousness of the disease as to how much you need and to what level for each environment though. If the disease had been airboure PPE would have been pointless. We would be in a lot more trouble. 

Covid19 transmission is airborne. Probably mainly by airborne transmission. Why did you think you are supposed to keep 2m from people?

How much and what types of PPE - again that's why you have experts and exercises.

Post edited at 23:41
1
 DancingOnRock 29 Apr 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

It’s not airborne. It’s spread by droplet transmission. The droplets can become airborne when you cough or sneeze, but the disease is not an airbourne disease. 

 elsewhere 29 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Ok borne by air rather than airborne less than 5um, although I'm pretty sure I've read some of the droplets meet that criteria.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202031254X

 DancingOnRock 30 Apr 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

Not significantly or it would have a much higher R0 value like measles which has R0 of 12-18. 

Post edited at 00:34
 JohnBson 30 Apr 2020
In reply to Phantom Disliker:

> I hear you re the hyperbolic nature of modern journalism but don't you think there has been a deep set arrogance in the nature of the cuts to essential services in the years leading up to this? And then there was Exercise Cygnus in 2016 (which predicted how we'd fail in a pandemic) and yet the blood letting continued.

Clearly you have never taken part in a planning exercise. They're designed so that your resources will fail so that they can test what measures you can put in place when the apocalypse happens. The scenario, like real life disaster, evolves with time and the assessor throws in curve balls to test your reaction. As was said by someone involved, the need for ventilators was so high that even increasing capacity 10 fold wouldn't be enough. 

It is also important to realise that such stress tests are not predictions of what the next virus will be, if it had been an ebola mutant then we would have different needs and it's not possible to prepare for all unforseen diseases which may or may never jump the species barrier.

It doesn't surprise me that the results weren't published, most of the public wouldn't understand the aims and objectives of a planning exercise and would believe they it was some sort of prediction. 

However it would appear that the lessons were learned, we didn't run out of ventilators. The private sector hospitals have been brought in to bridge the gap, manufacturing firms have accelerated production, the buying chains have sourced more and the approvers are working to fast track testing of worthy candidates. All of which are reactions to situations, precisely the kind of thinking a plan ex is designed to encourage.

It does worry me that the similar hasn't worked with PPE but this is in part because we are, for example, still demanding ffp3 masks which are EU standard, however the US has an equivalent standard with almost identical testing yet unlike the USA who have declared equivalence with a number of other standards authorities we haven't. This doesn't necessarily mean that we are getting a superior product, but it seems odd that where many other countries are looking to broaden their sourcing horizons We're sticking rigidly to a single approach. Why we are doing this would be a more intelligent line of questioning for a journalist than the current gotcha crap. 

Back to the original point though, I'd be more worried if the government was 'passing' a planning exercise as it would mean that the exercise was not rigorous enough and the testers were trying to massage egos. Publicity around planning exercises would be even stranger as they happen regularly and it would be wrong for politicians to be held to account for decisions made in an abstract scenario wargamed for them to fail. After all, every plan ex. is only every seen to be a learning opportunity for those involved and it's important that people are allow that development to occur as no person or system is infallible. 

 Ridge 30 Apr 2020
In reply to JohnBson:

As you said yourself, it's a learning opportunity. Where was the learning captured and acted on?

Same with stress tests. Stress tests were carried out at nuclear plants post Fukushima, leading to massive government investment in back up power, command control and communication, fleets of vehicles and earth moving equipment.

There's CBRNE kit, New Dimensions kit for Fire & Rescue, (although that's now being quietly withdrawn), all purchased based on learning from stress testing and real exercises. Why not a similar investment in what is very pretty low tech kit for an identified and highly likely scenario?

2
 elsewhere 30 Apr 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Not significantly or it would have a much higher R0 value like measles which has R0 of 12-18. 

That's interesting, I didn't know that's why some diseases have such high R0.

Googling airborne PPE it mentions the same N95 masks as used for Covid19, it's generic usage.

https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/airborne-precautions-sign-P.pdf

It may just be nothing more is practical or economic. Level 4 biosafety labs exist, I'm not sure if level 4 biosafety hospitals exist.

Post edited at 09:22
 neilh 30 Apr 2020
In reply to Greenbanks:

Point taken, apologies.But I hope you understand what I am saying in the context of poor reporting.

 jkarran 30 Apr 2020
In reply to neilh:

> The graphs at the top say must be treated with caution. ..........!

Indeed, we could be doing worse than it looks! Hope not because it looks bad. 

Jk

Post edited at 09:26
 Offwidth 30 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

A sciencist's view on the media and politicians.

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/04/29/following-the-science-boris-johnson-and-...

OP Postmanpat 30 Apr 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> A sciencist's view on the media and politicians.

Thanks. It actually talks a lot of sense. But ultimately the response can't be based on a straw poll of scientists. The science has to be distilled (presumably the job of sage?) and that forms a basis for policy response.

  He agrees that the media's lack of scientific understanding is a problem. I think it is a huge problem. If the government and its advisors know that the media is 1) unable to grasp the science 2) will malevolently distort even non scientific tissues (cf.Panorama) it is little wonder that they run scared and are reluctant to open their internal discussions to public scrutiny.

  As an aside, three of the strongest medical critics of government policy (Horton, Ashworth and Costello), who he mentions as having been "belittled by the MSN", were actually championed by the Guardian and given airtime on the BBC and probably elsewhere. Maybe it is a coincidence that they are long term members of the Labour party and political activists and also have professional disagreements with government policy on covid..

1
 Bob Kemp 30 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

Horton isn't a Labour member as far as I know.

"Horton has been labelled a left-winger by his critics. He rejects the tag, saying he has voted Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green. "

https://www.ft.com/content/8e54c36a-8311-11ea-b872-8db45d5f6714

1
cb294 30 Apr 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

Yes they do, a few specialized places per country. This is were Ebola evacuees were treated.

CB

OP Postmanpat 30 Apr 2020
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Horton isn't a Labour member as far as I know.

>

   i stand corrected, although I'd eat my hat if he didn't vote Labour....

2
 John2 30 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

What I'm criticising is the government's presentation. They have said in the past that shipments were going to arrive on a specific day which didn't arrive, they have actually said that more tests were carried out than were achieved in reality. I do not receive an impression of competence from them - if they can't get basic facts right such as how many tests were carried out over the weekend, what hope do they have of making sound decisions about handling the crisis?

2
 Bob Kemp 30 Apr 2020
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    i stand corrected, although I'd eat my hat if he didn't vote Labour....

Yes, sensible and informed people do that don't they? 😁 (Erm, maybe before and after J.C....).


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...