RugbyRebels

AS I've written previously, more weight for the inevitable enquiry once this is resolved. Removing key people now is pointless. I don't believe anyone is deliberately trying to screw this up and if they have learnt lessons along the way then great. Swapping them out will cause disruption and we really don't need that.

And unfortunately Panorama lost its shit a long time ago and is now as sensationalist as any other media outlet.

The time and place is the aftermath and the inquiry where all the facts can be reviewed (hopefully with some sympathy that decision makers didn't necessarily have all the information they needed). If there is blame that requires someone to resign then fair enough, I suspect that we will identify a host of systemic failures that is no one person's fault and they will require improvement. I also have no doubt that there will be am media stores demanding hellfire and vengeance on anyone who didn't act perfectly throughout and sensible improvements will get lost in the hysteria.

I dont expect Hancock to fall on his sword but just some recognition that there have been failings and that errors have been made wouldnt go amiss. I'm not expecting the Govt to get everything right, but some humility when they have obviously failed shouldnt be an unreasonable demand.

This is some very good advice on what the Govt should do. They wont heed it but that doesnt stop it being right.

http://blog.pauldcorrigan.com/2020/04/2 ... ould-give/

It concludes - "We need to do better on testing and PPE, but thanks to the NHS and the sacrifice of you all we are getting on top of this crisis – and will do better in the future"

Sandydragon wrote:AS I've written previously, more weight for the inevitable enquiry once this is resolved. Removing key people now is pointless. I don't believe anyone is deliberately trying to screw this up and if they have learnt lessons along the way then great. Swapping them out will cause disruption and we really don't need that.

And unfortunately Panorama lost its shit a long time ago and is now as sensationalist as any other media outlet.

The time and place is the aftermath and the inquiry where all the facts can be reviewed (hopefully with some sympathy that decision makers didn't necessarily have all the information they needed). If there is blame that requires someone to resign then fair enough, I suspect that we will identify a host of systemic failures that is no one person's fault and they will require improvement. I also have no doubt that there will be am media stores demanding hellfire and vengeance on anyone who didn't act perfectly throughout and sensible improvements will get lost in the hysteria.

Your faith is unwavering.

I would be more comfortable with an enquiry is there weren’t so many examples of them being buried by government. How’s that Russia report disclosure coming? The investigation into the Jennifer Acuri issue? How long did it take to get to the bottom of Hilsborough?

fivepointer wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Has anyone seen the panorama from last night? I have only read some of the reporting that goes alongside it (and posted a link in a previous post).

I will be watching this later on. Sounds damning.

It is damning. Govt poorly prepared from the outset and slow to act when it became obvious the direction the virus was going in. Nothing we didnt know or suspected already but the health care workers testimony just added weight to that view.
The programme contained the rather startling revelation that on 19 March the Govt removed Covid19 from the HCID list (high consequence infectious diseases) after it had put it on there in January.

see here for more info - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-conseq ... eases-hcid

BTW Definition of HCID
In the UK, a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) is defined according to the following criteria:

acute infectious disease
typically has a high case-fatality rate
may not have effective prophylaxis or treatment
often difficult to recognise and detect rapidly
ability to spread in the community and within healthcare settings
requires an enhanced individual, population and system response to ensure it is managed effectively, efficiently and safely

That word “typically” will be argued over. You could claim that covid doesn’t have a high case fatality rate. You would think that might be offset by the R value of the virus. But I guess that judgement rather depends on what you end goal is. In this case it is hard to argue that the end goal wasn’t to allow a lower standard of PPE to be the legal requirement.

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:AS I've written previously, more weight for the inevitable enquiry once this is resolved. Removing key people now is pointless. I don't believe anyone is deliberately trying to screw this up and if they have learnt lessons along the way then great. Swapping them out will cause disruption and we really don't need that.

And unfortunately Panorama lost its shit a long time ago and is now as sensationalist as any other media outlet.

The time and place is the aftermath and the inquiry where all the facts can be reviewed (hopefully with some sympathy that decision makers didn't necessarily have all the information they needed). If there is blame that requires someone to resign then fair enough, I suspect that we will identify a host of systemic failures that is no one person's fault and they will require improvement. I also have no doubt that there will be am media stores demanding hellfire and vengeance on anyone who didn't act perfectly throughout and sensible improvements will get lost in the hysteria.

Your faith is unwavering.

I would be more comfortable with an enquiry is there weren’t so many examples of them being buried by government. How’s that Russia report disclosure coming? The investigation into the Jennifer Acuri issue? How long did it take to get to the bottom of Hilsborough?

It’s got nothing to do with faith. But I’m not daft enough to expect a major enquiry in the middle of a crisis, and without a major enquiry all of the facts won’t be available so anything else is just speculation. It’s about being practical.

If Starmer is even vaguely competent he will call for an enquiry immediately the crisis is over and keep the pressure on. He will have public interest on his side. Enquiries take a while to complete, and as frustrating as that is it’s better than reaching half arsed opinions based on media reports and rumour.

Again, nothing to do with faith or trust in this government. But an opinion based on the reality of the situation.

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:AS I've written previously, more weight for the inevitable enquiry once this is resolved. Removing key people now is pointless. I don't believe anyone is deliberately trying to screw this up and if they have learnt lessons along the way then great. Swapping them out will cause disruption and we really don't need that.

And unfortunately Panorama lost its shit a long time ago and is now as sensationalist as any other media outlet.

The time and place is the aftermath and the inquiry where all the facts can be reviewed (hopefully with some sympathy that decision makers didn't necessarily have all the information they needed). If there is blame that requires someone to resign then fair enough, I suspect that we will identify a host of systemic failures that is no one person's fault and they will require improvement. I also have no doubt that there will be am media stores demanding hellfire and vengeance on anyone who didn't act perfectly throughout and sensible improvements will get lost in the hysteria.

Your faith is unwavering.

I would be more comfortable with an enquiry is there weren’t so many examples of them being buried by government. How’s that Russia report disclosure coming? The investigation into the Jennifer Acuri issue? How long did it take to get to the bottom of Hilsborough?

It’s got nothing to do with faith. But I’m not daft enough to expect a major enquiry in the middle of a crisis, and without a major enquiry all of the facts won’t be available so anything else is just speculation. It’s about being practical.

If Starmer is even vaguely competent he will call for an enquiry immediately the crisis is over and keep the pressure on. He will have public interest on his side. Enquiries take a while to complete, and as frustrating as that is it’s better than reaching half arsed opinions based on media reports and rumour.

Again, nothing to do with faith or trust in this government. But an opinion based on the reality of the situation.

Well I guess that’s an improvement from suggesting I was projecting or engaging in hyperbole.

I “project” that we now know why Cummings needed to be on Sage. Having a legal requirement to protect staff was a problem for this government and it got sorted.

Donny osmond wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:To report back to the PM

I’m sure that’s the case. I’m also sure that there is nobody in government with a better understanding of medical science than Cummings and therefore nobody better placed to report back to the PM. I’m also sure Trump is a stable genius and that a UV lamp will sort this whole issue.

Fair point, I'm sure there are plenty who could understand the science better (although, again, that's conjecture on our part), and I'm certainly not promoting Cummings as someone I would have at those meetings, but the PM knows and trusts him and that's really what matters as far as communication goes.

No doubt the PM's trust in Cummings is the reason why he's in those meetings. But having a non-scientist try to convey scientific information to another non-scientist makes for pretty poor communication. If there are any misunderstandings or non-scientific biases on either side, there's no one to pick it up.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

canta_brian wrote: I’m sure that’s the case. I’m also sure that there is nobody in government with a better understanding of medical science than Cummings and therefore nobody better placed to report back to the PM. I’m also sure Trump is a stable genius and that a UV lamp will sort this whole issue.

Fair point, I'm sure there are plenty who could understand the science better (although, again, that's conjecture on our part), and I'm certainly not promoting Cummings as someone I would have at those meetings, but the PM knows and trusts him and that's really what matters as far as communication goes.

No doubt the PM's trust in Cummings is the reason why he's in those meetings. But having a non-scientist try to convey scientific information to another non-scientist makes for pretty poor communication. If there are any misunderstandings or non-scientific biases on either side, there's no one to pick it up.

^^
This

Edit: What’s the point.

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote: Your faith is unwavering.

I would be more comfortable with an enquiry is there weren’t so many examples of them being buried by government. How’s that Russia report disclosure coming? The investigation into the Jennifer Acuri issue? How long did it take to get to the bottom of Hilsborough?

It’s got nothing to do with faith. But I’m not daft enough to expect a major enquiry in the middle of a crisis, and without a major enquiry all of the facts won’t be available so anything else is just speculation. It’s about being practical.

If Starmer is even vaguely competent he will call for an enquiry immediately the crisis is over and keep the pressure on. He will have public interest on his side. Enquiries take a while to complete, and as frustrating as that is it’s better than reaching half arsed opinions based on media reports and rumour.

Again, nothing to do with faith or trust in this government. But an opinion based on the reality of the situation.

Well I guess that’s an improvement from suggesting I was projecting or engaging in hyperbole.

I “project” that we now know why Cummings needed to be on Sage. Having a legal requirement to protect staff was a problem for this government and it got sorted.

As opposed to me having faith in a government I didn't vote for? I'm not the one making this a row along political lines - just to be clear on that.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

canta_brian wrote: I’m sure that’s the case. I’m also sure that there is nobody in government with a better understanding of medical science than Cummings and therefore nobody better placed to report back to the PM. I’m also sure Trump is a stable genius and that a UV lamp will sort this whole issue.

Fair point, I'm sure there are plenty who could understand the science better (although, again, that's conjecture on our part), and I'm certainly not promoting Cummings as someone I would have at those meetings, but the PM knows and trusts him and that's really what matters as far as communication goes.

No doubt the PM's trust in Cummings is the reason why he's in those meetings. But having a non-scientist try to convey scientific information to another non-scientist makes for pretty poor communication. If there are any misunderstandings or non-scientific biases on either side, there's no one to pick it up.

Except that the scientific advisers will attend COBRA (or at least the key players from Sage will represent the collective views there).

Mellsblue wrote:Edit: What’s the point.

I know, I know.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Edit: What’s the point.

I know, I know.

You two should get a room

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Edit: What’s the point.

I know, I know.

You two should get a room

We did but Dom was sat in the corner taking notes for Boris.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Fair point, I'm sure there are plenty who could understand the science better (although, again, that's conjecture on our part), and I'm certainly not promoting Cummings as someone I would have at those meetings, but the PM knows and trusts him and that's really what matters as far as communication goes.

No doubt the PM's trust in Cummings is the reason why he's in those meetings. But having a non-scientist try to convey scientific information to another non-scientist makes for pretty poor communication. If there are any misunderstandings or non-scientific biases on either side, there's no one to pick it up.

Except that the scientific advisers will attend COBRA (or at least the key players from Sage will represent the collective views there).

Not much good when Johnson didn't even bother to attend COBRA. Who knows how much of our misguided and slow response was due to the PM relying on Cummings's second-hand reporting (and their own combined misunderstandings and preconceptions)?

No doubt, the situation improved once Johnson actually showed up for COBRA. (Cummings is still an unreliable and unnecessary channel for science to the PM though... etc etc).

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
I know, I know.

You two should get a room

We did but Dom was sat in the corner taking notes for Boris.

I hope you didn't let him intimidate you.

Just been looking at the ONS numbers for Covid-19 deaths up to 17th April and comparing them with the NHS numbers the government reports daily. The ONS report all deaths involving Covid-19 and also total and excess deaths compared with the previous 5 year average. The NHS numbers are deaths occuring in hospital with a positive test for the virus.

Up to 17 Apr, we have:
NHS UK Covid-19 deaths: 14,576
All UK Covid-19 deaths: 20,909
So the total UK number is 43.5% higher than the NHS number.

Assuming this ratio holds to date, we have as of 28 Apr:
NHS UK Covid-19 deaths: 21,678
All UK Covid-19 deaths (extrapolated): 31,097

(If you don't like the idea of extrapolation, we can take the ONS number to 17 Apr and add to it the NHS numbers since then.
This gives us a very conservative, but fully confirmed total UK Covid-19 deaths to 28 Apr of: 28,011)

Since France (unlike Spain, Italy and the UK) do include non-hospital deaths in their numbers, this means we are already well past their total of ~24k.


Ultimately a more important number is the excess deaths for any cause, if we assume Covid-19 is the main driver of the excess. Taking the ONS numbers for England and Wales (they don't have UK-wide numbers, so I have to assume the % excess in Eng&Wal is roughly that of the whole UK) to 17 Apr we have:
Covid-19 deaths: 19,054
Excess deaths compared with 5 year average: 26,829
We see that total excess deaths are 40.8% higher than ONS reported Covid-19 deaths.

Assuming this ratio holds to date, we have:
All UK excess deaths (presumably due to Covid-19) to 28 Apr: 43,786
which is just over double the reported NHS number.

Couple of very interesting graphs from twitter on that very subject SoM...

From Ed Conway, Sky news editor who is usually good about checking his stuff, I don't know where he gets his figures, he just says they're from something called EuroMomo and there are replies saying the data on the UK govt site shows a different picture.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Chris Giles (FT reporter) reckons its a bit more.

"Today, after shockingly high @ONS death figures, a cautious estimate of the number of UK people who have died directly or indirectly due to the coronavirus pandemic is 46,000"

see @chrisgiles_

If people get blamed for an excess mortality now will they be praised for a mortality shortage in the months to come if being hopeful?

Donny osmond wrote:Couple of very interesting graphs from twitter on that very subject SoM...

From Ed Conway, Sky news editor who is usually good about checking his stuff, I don't know where he gets his figures, he just says they're from something called EuroMomo and there are replies saying the data on the UK govt site shows a different picture.

Interesting. Although I don't understand why the others are either coming back to the normal range or never left it - I think we need more information before we believe those graphs!

fivepointer wrote:Chris Giles (FT reporter) reckons its a bit more.

"Today, after shockingly high @ONS death figures, a cautious estimate of the number of UK people who have died directly or indirectly due to the coronavirus pandemic is 46,000"

see @chrisgiles_

IIRC they were saying it was 41k last week, but I didn't look into it. Not sure why they're getting a slightly bigger number than mine, but it's all the same ballpark. Shocking stuff.

Digby wrote:If people get blamed for an excess mortality now will they be praised for a mortality shortage in the months to come if being hopeful?

Depends what reason we can attribute the excess or shortage to. In fact, there was a shortage in the first couple of months of the year, which I think was attributed to a mild winter (rather than Brexit ).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Couple of very interesting graphs from twitter on that very subject SoM...

From Ed Conway, Sky news editor who is usually good about checking his stuff, I don't know where he gets his figures, he just says they're from something called EuroMomo and there are replies saying the data on the UK govt site shows a different picture.[/img]

Interesting. Although I don't understand why the others are either coming back to the normal range or never left it - I think we need more information before we believe those graphs!

I've taken a look at Euromomo. Really interesting, but I'm wondering if a lot of those countries simply haven't submitted week 16 data yet. England is showing the highest deviation from the mean (49 standard deviations...which is huge). But I don't see how Germany can be flatlining...
So I think I'll return to this in a few days and see how it changes.

I saw the Euromomo site a few days back but don't have the stats chops to interpret it beyond it looks like we're doing spectacularly badly compared to everyone else.

There are lots of types of death which should be down as a result of lockdowns: traffic deaths; other infectious disease; industrial injury and no doubt more (murder, suicide, drug overdose are all debatable whether they are net gains or losses, and may differ country to country). Therefore it shouldn't be surprising that the countries who are doing well with Covid 19 aren't massively outside normal rates for deaths.