RugbyRebels

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Lying cunts.

Here Eug, what should I be thinking about this then... Scottish Govt emergency legislation to suspend trial by jury and treble FOI request time limit to 60 days.



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

FOI, meh. Civil Service is unlikely to have capacity to deal with anything at the moment anyway.

Is that all trials by jury? If so that's mental. In England there's just an acceptance that you have to delay. That might mean many defendants stay in custody for longer, but at least that's unconvicted.

Coronavirus was judged a “moderate risk” to Britain by the government’s scientific advisers five weeks ago as cases began to surge in Italy, The Times has learnt.

Scientists on a government committee, including the key pandemic modeller Neil Ferguson, met on February 21 and discussed the Covid-19 threat level.

Recently released minutes show that the experts and Whitehall observers raised “no objections” to holding the risk level at moderate despite alarming figures from China.


The advisers on the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag) were given the latest global data on the outbreak showing 75,465 confirmed cases of the virus in China with 2,236 fatalities.

Small numbers of deaths had also occurred in Iran, France, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea and the crisis on the Diamond Princess cruise ship was at its height.


Nervtag concluded that the official risk assessment should remain unchanged: “Current PHE risk assessment of the disease is moderate. The PHE risk assessment to the UK population is also moderate. This is a composite of what is known about transmission and the impact on public health globally and in the UK.”

The disclosure of the minutes offers a glimpse of scientific thinking as the outbreak emerged and raises questions about the speed of the response.

On the day that the advisers met, Italy recorded its first coronavirus death and two days later schools in the north of the country were closed.

The February 21 meeting was conducted by teleconference with observers from PHE and the Department of Health and Social Care. There was extensive discussion of the risk assessment.

“Some members commented that there may be sustained transmission outside mainland China. Others commented that there is plenty of scope for escalation in the UK and this would be an argument to keep the assessment as moderate rather than high at this time,” the minutes recorded.

The group’s chairman, Peter Horby of Oxford University, asked if anyone thought the risk assessment should change but “no objections were raised”.

After the meeting, one scientist emailed to say he disagreed with the assessment but because of technical problems had been unable to intervene in the discussion. John Edmunds, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, sent a message saying “the risk to the UK population [in the PHE risk assessment] should be high, as there is evidence of ongoing transmission in Korea, Japan and Singapore, as well as in China”.

As the experts debated the risks, sport and entertainment events continued. Schools were not closed until March 18, pubs and gyms followed, and a full lockdown was put in place on March 23.

Jonathan Ball, professor of virology at Nottingham University, said that the slow reaction to coronavirus in the early stages meant the UK “has been playing catch up ever since”.

He said: “It was clear by late February that the virus was transmitting easily and extensively. This was evident not only from data from China, but what was already happening in Italy. In the outbreak weeks’ if not days’ delay have proven to be crucial, and the risk to the UK population was already evident.”

He said that the composition of Nervtag was a matter for concern because a number of academic institutions seemed to be over-represented. “It is difficult to see how an environment of necessary constructive challenge could be easily established.”

The gov.uk website states that “the risk to the UK has been raised to high” but does not say when that level was fixed. PHE said the decision was the responsibility of the chief medical officer.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Here Eug, what should I be thinking about this then... Scottish Govt emergency legislation to suspend trial by jury and treble FOI request time limit to 60 days.



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

FOI, meh. Civil Service is unlikely to have capacity to deal with anything at the moment anyway.

Is that all trials by jury? If so that's mental. In England there's just an acceptance that you have to delay. That might mean many defendants stay in custody for longer, but at least that's unconvicted.

FOIs are the bane of my life at the best of times, at the moment they are diverting resource away from actually getting stuff done.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Lying cunts.

Here Eug, what should I be thinking about this then... Scottish Govt emergency legislation to suspend trial by jury and treble FOI request time limit to 60 days.



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

FOI, meh. Civil Service is unlikely to have capacity to deal with anything at the moment anyway.

Is that all trials by jury? If so that's mental. In England there's just an acceptance that you have to delay. That might mean many defendants stay in custody for longer, but at least that's unconvicted.

Donny osmond wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Here Eug, what should I be thinking about this then... Scottish Govt emergency legislation to suspend trial by jury and treble FOI request time limit to 60 days.



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

FOI, meh. Civil Service is unlikely to have capacity to deal with anything at the moment anyway.

Is that all trials by jury? If so that's mental. In England there's just an acceptance that you have to delay. That might mean many defendants stay in custody for longer, but at least that's unconvicted.

Well it's been dropped now anyway.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Sandydragon wrote:From today's Times.

Coronavirus was judged a “moderate risk” to Britain by the government’s scientific advisers five weeks ago as cases began to surge in Italy, The Times has learnt..

Sandydragon wrote:From today's Times.

Coronavirus was judged a “moderate risk” to Britain by the government’s scientific advisers five weeks ago as cases began to surge in Italy, The Times has learnt.

Scientists on a government committee, including the key pandemic modeller Neil Ferguson, met on February 21 and discussed the Covid-19 threat level.

Recently released minutes show that the experts and Whitehall observers raised “no objections” to holding the risk level at moderate despite alarming figures from China.


The advisers on the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag) were given the latest global data on the outbreak showing 75,465 confirmed cases of the virus in China with 2,236 fatalities.

Small numbers of deaths had also occurred in Iran, France, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea and the crisis on the Diamond Princess cruise ship was at its height.


Nervtag concluded that the official risk assessment should remain unchanged: “Current PHE risk assessment of the disease is moderate. The PHE risk assessment to the UK population is also moderate. This is a composite of what is known about transmission and the impact on public health globally and in the UK.”

The disclosure of the minutes offers a glimpse of scientific thinking as the outbreak emerged and raises questions about the speed of the response.

On the day that the advisers met, Italy recorded its first coronavirus death and two days later schools in the north of the country were closed.

The February 21 meeting was conducted by teleconference with observers from PHE and the Department of Health and Social Care. There was extensive discussion of the risk assessment.

“Some members commented that there may be sustained transmission outside mainland China. Others commented that there is plenty of scope for escalation in the UK and this would be an argument to keep the assessment as moderate rather than high at this time,” the minutes recorded.

The group’s chairman, Peter Horby of Oxford University, asked if anyone thought the risk assessment should change but “no objections were raised”.

After the meeting, one scientist emailed to say he disagreed with the assessment but because of technical problems had been unable to intervene in the discussion. John Edmunds, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, sent a message saying “the risk to the UK population [in the PHE risk assessment] should be high, as there is evidence of ongoing transmission in Korea, Japan and Singapore, as well as in China”.

As the experts debated the risks, sport and entertainment events continued. Schools were not closed until March 18, pubs and gyms followed, and a full lockdown was put in place on March 23.

Jonathan Ball, professor of virology at Nottingham University, said that the slow reaction to coronavirus in the early stages meant the UK “has been playing catch up ever since”.

He said: “It was clear by late February that the virus was transmitting easily and extensively. This was evident not only from data from China, but what was already happening in Italy. In the outbreak weeks’ if not days’ delay have proven to be crucial, and the risk to the UK population was already evident.”

He said that the composition of Nervtag was a matter for concern because a number of academic institutions seemed to be over-represented. “It is difficult to see how an environment of necessary constructive challenge could be easily established.”

The gov.uk website states that “the risk to the UK has been raised to high” but does not say when that level was fixed. PHE said the decision was the responsibility of the chief medical officer.

Mellsblue wrote:Another interesting read:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... t-we-ready

twitchy wrote:

Banquo wrote:Today's figures make very grim reading.

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote:Today's figures make very grim reading.

Shit. Thats a bit of a jump, although you can still argue that those who are dying today caught the illness prior to the lockdown.

canta_brian wrote:Seems the Germans are just cleverer than is in the UK.

They are testing loads more people by pooling testing. They test 10 people’s samples with a single test.
If negative they have saved 9 tests. If positive they have to test all 10 which means 11 tests for 10 people, but overall it seems to be saving them thousands of tests.

Banquo wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Seems the Germans are just cleverer than is in the UK.

They are testing loads more people by pooling testing. They test 10 people’s samples with a single test.
If negative they have saved 9 tests. If positive they have to test all 10 which means 11 tests for 10 people, but overall it seems to be saving them thousands of tests.

That is smart, you'd think that someone might have noticed or passed it on!

Banquo wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote:Today's figures make very grim reading.

Shit. Thats a bit of a jump, although you can still argue that those who are dying today caught the illness prior to the lockdown.

also suspect they are recording out of hospital deaths finally. Infections obviously growing in line with acceleration in testing.

In other news, its weird that no regional strategies are that apparent. Currently in the East of England, still lowish infection rates, hospitals eerily quiet, PPE coming out of our ears, staff who have been deployed by me and others into acutes and integrated community teams not hugely busy; whether its the calm before the storm, or whether the NHS should have been deploying into areas of need, time will tell. Its ridiculous that the supply chain of say PPE is so badly managed.

The overall death rate from covid-19 has been estimated at 0.66%, rising sharply to 7.8% in people aged over 80 and declining to 0.0016% in children aged 9 and under.

The estimates, calculated by researchers in the UK, used aggregate data on cases and deaths in mainland China. Unlike other estimates, however, they adjusted for undiagnosed cases and the number of people in each age group of a population.

The team found that nearly one in five people over 80 infected with covid-19 would probably require hospital admission, compared with around 1% of people under 30.

Donny osmond wrote:https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m13 ... aign=usage

The overall death rate from covid-19 has been estimated at 0.66%, rising sharply to 7.8% in people aged over 80 and declining to 0.0016% in children aged 9 and under.

The estimates, calculated by researchers in the UK, used aggregate data on cases and deaths in mainland China. Unlike other estimates, however, they adjusted for undiagnosed cases and the number of people in each age group of a population.

The team found that nearly one in five people over 80 infected with covid-19 would probably require hospital admission, compared with around 1% of people under 30.

before anyone starts about Chinese figures, these are corroborated (by others, not BMJ) with figures from Italy. Again those figures are probs unreliable, but they're unlikely to be accidentally unreliable in parallel.

Banquo wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Seems the Germans are just cleverer than is in the UK.

They are testing loads more people by pooling testing. They test 10 people’s samples with a single test.
If negative they have saved 9 tests. If positive they have to test all 10 which means 11 tests for 10 people, but overall it seems to be saving them thousands of tests.

That is smart, you'd think that someone might have noticed or passed it on!