Coronavirus: 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster

[Raja Clavata]

4 hours ago, Mice! said:

The government said don't go out please stay home, then more people than ever went out for a meal and walk on mothers day. Lots of people got letters saying stay home for 3 months because your vulnerable. You would think being told this affects the old and people with existing health issues would be enough to have those groups staying home happily until told otherwise. 

More than ever went out for a meal on Mothers day - really!? Sorry but that's baloney!

[enfieldspares]

Quote

If you don't follow 'the science' - what other policy do you suggest? (Genuine question)

You throw money at the problem and bet on every horse in the hope that one will get over the line. Why? Because you're party that did this below. And cheered and clapped when they imposed a 1% pay rise on nurses.

Quote

You prepare for these things by making sure the NHS is not running to the max capacity as a matter of routine before a pandemic arrives.

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by enfieldspares

[eggy74]

ahhh well, you cant please all the people, all of the time

 

[Mice!]

41 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

More than ever went out for a meal on Mothers day - really!? Sorry but that's baloney!

Have a look at the figures for Snowdonia,  it was supposed to be the busiest day ever

[Raja Clavata]

I think the government have a done a fantastic job of building ICU capacity with the various Nightingale hospitals - very well done.

I think the various breathing aids and ventilators that have been produced is nothing short of astonishing although I'm not sure how much credit the government can claim for this - anyway, again, very well done.

I would like to know, in the fullness of time, if the original policy of herd immunity was science or Cummings led - this cost us time. The modelling of deaths under this plan returned ~250k deaths, that would have tipped the NHS over the edge and have been political suicide (given that no other country is / was on that trajectory). The revised model with the lockdown that has been implemented returned ~20k deaths, we are already way over that. I would like to know, in the fullness of time, if the model was flawed or we suffered adversely from the original plan and delay implementing lockdown as a result - this doesn't appear very well done.

PPE - this has not gone well, even as recently as today - in the fullness of time the government need to come clean on the failings here.

Testing - frankly the government appear to have been making this up as they go along, this does not appear very well done.

Care homes - tricky one as most people seem to forget that these are private enterprises, this was always going to be an area of social care that was going to be hit hard - not really clear to me what was expected of the government in this regard...

Personally, I'm tired of hearing how worse it would have been with Corbyn and Abbott - we all know that and it's part of the reason they are no longer around - this just seems like attempts to deflect scrutiny on the government.

Regarding Boris, objectively speaking what has he actually done in this crisis (genuine question) - he seemed to lose a bit of his ego and buffoonery in the press conferences (all good) but he appears to not have practiced what he preached and sailed close to the wind. Despite it looking grim for a while I was always confident he would pour through, and I'm properly glad he did. I just don't follow why some are eulogising him and his government over the handling of this so far.

[lancer425]

5 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I think the government have a done a fantastic job of building ICU capacity with the various Nightingale hospitals - very well done.

I think the various breathing aids and ventilators that have been produced is nothing short of astonishing although I'm not sure how much credit the government can claim for this - anyway, again, very well done.

I would like to know, in the fullness of time, if the original policy of herd immunity was science or Cummings led - this cost us time. The modelling of deaths under this plan returned ~250k deaths, that would have tipped the NHS over the edge and have been political suicide (given that no other country is / was on that trajectory). The revised model with the lockdown that has been implemented returned ~20k deaths, we are already way over that. I would like to know, in the fullness of time, if the model was flawed or we suffered adversely from the original plan and delay implementing lockdown as a result - this doesn't appear very well done.

PPE - this has not gone well, even as recently as today - in the fullness of time the government need to come clean on the failings here.

Testing - frankly the government appear to have been making this up as they go along, this does not appear very well done.

Care homes - tricky one as most people seem to forget that these are private enterprises, this was always going to be an area of social care that was going to be hit hard - not really clear to me what was expected of the government in this regard...

Personally, I'm tired of hearing how worse it would have been with Corbyn and Abbott - we all know that and it's part of the reason they are no longer around - this just seems like attempts to deflect scrutiny on the government.

Regarding Boris, objectively speaking what has he actually done in this crisis (genuine question) - he seemed to lose a bit of his ego and buffoonery in the press conferences (all good) but he appears to not have practiced what he preached and sailed close to the wind. Despite it looking grim for a while I was always confident he would pour through, and I'm properly glad he did. I just don't follow why some are eulogising him and his government over the handling of this so far.

Why not Praise the governments efforts?.

[Raja Clavata]

2 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Have a look at the figures for Snowdonia,  it was supposed to be the busiest day ever

Look at what I quoted and what you replied with. I asked about people going out for meals - there were mass cancellations around here that were well documented - you answered with Snowdonia. If you know the area you know people did not congregate enmass there for Mothers day meals with their mums.

I'm fully aware of the figures for Snowdonia, it's like a second or third home for me, I understand why people flocked there and yes it was a rather disturbing spectacle. Happy to discuss how that happened elsewhere but I was asking about the going out for meals!?

1 minute ago, lancer425 said:

Why not Praise the governments efforts?.

I have, for the things I feel are praise worthy. Did you miss that bit?

[lancer425]

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Look at what I quoted and what you replied with. I asked about people going out for meals - there were mass cancellations around here that were well documented - you answered with Snowdonia. If you know the area you know people did not congregate enmass there for Mothers day meals with their mums.

I'm fully aware of the figures for Snowdonia, it's like a second or third home for me, I understand why people flocked there and yes it was a rather disturbing spectacle. Happy to discuss how that happened elsewhere but I was asking about the going out for meals!?

I have, for the things I feel are praise worthy. Did you miss that bit?

No i noticed  and exactly why i asked why wouldnt people want to praise him and his government. ?

[Raja Clavata]

11 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

No i noticed  and exactly why i asked why wouldnt people want to praise him and his government. ?

I don’t get your point. If it makes you feel better blindly praising then cool.

I’d just like to add that I think the financial support package from the government is outstanding and they have adapted it. Very well done indeed.

Apologies, I missed that from my original list, distracted by multiple messages from a family member.

[AVB]

Official response to the article. 

https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/04/19/response-to-sunday-times-insight-article/?fbclid=IwAR00bJvOQNEwJCrjwzW3c_Z-5vPnZEpBFKwS00uHSjUji2SvcIeqa2uh86g

[lancer425]

10 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I don’t get your point. If it makes you feel better blindly praising then cool.

I’d just like to add that I think the financial support package from the government is outstanding and they have adapted it. Very well done indeed.

Apologies, I missed that from my original list, distracted by multiple messages from a family member.

Not blindly praising anybody. i just dont understand why you nsaid what you did. Still dont.

[Longbower]

I would like to ask , the following question , just for clarification .

According to the Office of National Statistics ,on average 500,000 people die every year in the UK,( They are online for all to see). So that is 1,369.86 people a day . So are the deaths attributed to covid19 , in addition to this average ?

The Government are politicians ,  not experts , so they have to follow the scientific advice given to them. If, that advice, is good , and it has a positive outcome , they can say it was the correct course of action to take. If it turns out to be bad advice, (and lets hope not). guess.

I think the whole world was caught 'napping' with this virus. 

Stay safe guys.

 

[Raja Clavata]

21 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

Not blindly praising anybody. i just dont understand why you nsaid what you did. Still dont.

What points do you disagree with or not understand?

14 minutes ago, Longbower said:

I would like to ask , the following question , just for clarification .

According to the Office of National Statistics ,on average 500,000 people die every year in the UK,( They are online for all to see). So that is 1,369.86 people a day . So are the deaths attributed to covid19 , in addition to this average ?

The Government are politicians ,  not experts , so they have to follow the scientific advice given to them. If, that advice, is good , and it has a positive outcome , they can say it was the correct course of action to take. If it turns out to be bad advice, (and lets hope not). guess.

I think the whole world was caught 'napping' with this virus. 

Stay safe guys.

 

No they are not. This is the crux of the dying with vs. dying because of COVID.

[Retsdon]

4 hours ago, AVB said:

Official response to the article. 

https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/04/19/response-to-sunday-times-insight-article/?fbclid=IwAR00bJvOQNEwJCrjwzW3c_Z-5vPnZEpBFKwS00uHSjUji2SvcIeqa2uh86g

And it's extremely disturbing that official government resources, complete with the Queen's seal, are now apparently to be used for partisan political purposes. Official government documentation should be used only for official government business. The Sunday Times article wasn't an attack on the the institution of the British Government itself; it was criticism of certain political personalities and their competence and effectiveness in handling their mandate. Using official government resources to defend individual political figures is a total misuse of those resources which should always be kept politically impartial as far as  is absolutely possible. 

Or has Britain now become a One Party State?

[JohnfromUK]

6 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

You throw money at the problem and bet on every horse in the hope that one will get over the line.

Throwing money at problems that may or may not arise is simply not practical; we did have a 'pandemic reserve' I understand.  It is not affordable to run any facility with huge 'surge capacity' always on standby.

Since the pandemic has hit, we have thrown money at it and brought in rules and financial measures that would have been unthinkable before.  This has worked to the degree that the NHS has not been overwhelmed/swamped - though there have been shortages and some admin/logistics failings, overall much has worked well.

[JohnfromUK]

2 hours ago, Retsdon said:

And it's extremely disturbing that official government resources,

Newspaper prints allegations about government.  (Normal) 

Government believes they are incorrect.  (Normal frequently)

Government issues explanation why they are incorrect.  (Normal, though less common)

[old man]

13 hours ago, Dave at kelton said:

Yep I think the world will be a very different place when this is sorted. If it rejuvenates British manufacturing and engineering it will be real plus. I hope that there will be a very careful analysis of supply chains and with us out of EEC more contracts retained in the UK.

With a bit of luck after this there will be a change in policy that ensures the willingness to "give it all away" policies of the past are seen as the stupidities they are?

Giving control of infrastructure and utilities to others must be beyond stupidity?

12 hours ago, henry d said:

No one, all just guesstimates things like this are too difficult to prepare for.

Not sure that correct Henry, we seemingly don't plan for anything nowadays except to put vast profit into a mates back pocket?

[old man]

9 hours ago, lancer425 said:

Why not Praise the governments efforts?.

Praise and reverence may not be the same thing?

[Lord v]

The harsh truth is that the 'correct' solution for dealing with the issue has to be be based on each countries unique geo-socio-political set up. While its useful to look at other countries responses it will (largely) be impossible to replicate the exact circumstances and results from each country.

For example the localised lockdowns in Germany seem to have been very successful. However their political setup makes this pretty easy and the populace are used to be being treated differently based on the state they are in. Can you imagine the hissy fits over here if say Birmingham was put under restrictions and Manchester not? Of course Germany had the testing to support this... 

We don't have an authoritarian state that can impose mandatory restrictions on a whim. 

The UK has always had excellent high end manufacturing ability - hence the ability to develop and produce ventilators at astonishing pace.  

We are very reliant on the import of PPE manufactured abroad - this was always going to be a weak point so I am not sure why its a shock that this has proven to be the case. Was this well handled? I don't think we can be sure on that until some detail is known. The NHS hasn't been a single entity for a long time with individual trusts being responsible for procurement. Did they have the necessary guidance from central government? maybe not. Were conflicts in the supply chain properly managed?  

We have a pretty efficient construction industry - the Nightingale hospitals are properly impressive. Again a particular strong point. 

Those are just some basic comparisons before you really drill into the detail of supply chains, trade agreements, constitution, social support frameworks, legislation, public funding, procurement frameworks,  sociology, geography.... etc, etc. 

The one where the government definitely has questions to answer is over testing... there is no reason this was particularly shambolic. The UK has world  class labs and the capacity across the various sectors that mean we should have done a lot better. Hubris, negligence or conspiracy?  

The benefit of hindsight is that we know Covid is a big deal - however the contained SARS outbreak in SK was probably prevalent in most peoples minds - remember that? Probably not very well. The difficulty in developing a proportionate response is that with the elements mentioned above you need to decided on what the proportionate response is about 3 months before. 

 

 

 

[Mice!]

5 minutes ago, Lord v said:

The harsh truth is that the 'correct' solution for dealing with the issue has to be be based on each countries unique geo-socio-political set up. While its useful to look at other countries responses it will (largely) be impossible to replicate the exact circumstances and results from each country.

For example the localised lockdowns in Germany seem to have been very successful. However their political setup makes this pretty easy and the populace are used to be being treated differently based on the state they are in. Can you imagine the hissy fits over here if say Birmingham was put under restrictions and Manchester not? Of course Germany had the testing to support this... 

We don't have an authoritarian state that can impose mandatory restrictions on a whim. 

The UK has always had excellent high end manufacturing ability - hence the ability to develop and produce ventilators at astonishing pace.  

We are very reliant on the import of PPE manufactured abroad - this was always going to be a weak point so I am not sure why its a shock that this has proven to be the case. Was this well handled? I don't think we can be sure on that until some detail is known. The NHS hasn't been a single entity for a long time with individual trusts being responsible for procurement. Did they have the necessary guidance from central government? maybe not. Were conflicts in the supply chain properly managed?  

We have a pretty efficient construction industry - the Nightingale hospitals are properly impressive. Again a particular strong point. 

Those are just some basic comparisons before you really drill into the detail of supply chains, trade agreements, constitution, social support frameworks, legislation, public funding, procurement frameworks,  sociology, geography.... etc, etc. 

The one where the government definitely has questions to answer is over testing... there is no reason this was particularly shambolic. The UK has world  class labs and the capacity across the various sectors that mean we should have done a lot better. Hubris, negligence or conspiracy?  

The benefit of hindsight is that we know Covid is a big deal - however the contained SARS outbreak in SK was probably prevalent in most peoples minds - remember that? Probably not very well. The difficulty in developing a proportionate response is that with the elements mentioned above you need to decided on what the proportionate response is about 3 months before. 

 

 

 

Excellent post.

[Scully]

3 hours ago, Lord v said:

The harsh truth is that the 'correct' solution for dealing with the issue has to be be based on each countries unique geo-socio-political set up. While its useful to look at other countries responses it will (largely) be impossible to replicate the exact circumstances and results from each country.

For example the localised lockdowns in Germany seem to have been very successful. However their political setup makes this pretty easy and the populace are used to be being treated differently based on the state they are in. Can you imagine the hissy fits over here if say Birmingham was put under restrictions and Manchester not? Of course Germany had the testing to support this... 

We don't have an authoritarian state that can impose mandatory restrictions on a whim. 

The UK has always had excellent high end manufacturing ability - hence the ability to develop and produce ventilators at astonishing pace.  

We are very reliant on the import of PPE manufactured abroad - this was always going to be a weak point so I am not sure why its a shock that this has proven to be the case. Was this well handled? I don't think we can be sure on that until some detail is known. The NHS hasn't been a single entity for a long time with individual trusts being responsible for procurement. Did they have the necessary guidance from central government? maybe not. Were conflicts in the supply chain properly managed?  

We have a pretty efficient construction industry - the Nightingale hospitals are properly impressive. Again a particular strong point. 

Those are just some basic comparisons before you really drill into the detail of supply chains, trade agreements, constitution, social support frameworks, legislation, public funding, procurement frameworks,  sociology, geography.... etc, etc. 

The one where the government definitely has questions to answer is over testing... there is no reason this was particularly shambolic. The UK has world  class labs and the capacity across the various sectors that mean we should have done a lot better. Hubris, negligence or conspiracy?  

The benefit of hindsight is that we know Covid is a big deal - however the contained SARS outbreak in SK was probably prevalent in most peoples minds - remember that? Probably not very well. The difficulty in developing a proportionate response is that with the elements mentioned above you need to decided on what the proportionate response is about 3 months before. 

 

 

 

Good post. 

[Retsdon]

3 hours ago, Lord v said:

he difficulty in developing a proportionate response is that with the elements mentioned above you need to decided on what the proportionate response is about 3 months before. 

Good post, btw. But I think it goes back further than 3 months. As I posted before, the government did have a plan  - it was the 2012 WHO mandated plan for dealing with an 'unknown' flu epidemic and the basic tenet of the plan was to hold the fort until the arrival of a vaccine. But Covid-19 isnt' flu, there aren't the mitigating drugs like Tamiflu or whateve,r and a vaccine is not an adaption on an exisiting one, but an invention. In other words the plan was for the wrong disease. 

I'll also let Johnson's government off the hook for an initially slow response because quite honestly, their 'scientific advice' was and has been atrocious -basically flying in the face of WHO recommendations and the direct lessons from China. That might be because so many of the current scientific advisory team were instrumental in drawing up the 2012 plan and having invested in it were loathe to abandon it. In any  event, the government was forced to do a screeching U turn on the lock down thing, and would probably like to do an equally screeching one on the testing. But these things require planning and infrastructure and can't be just conjured up from thin air.

So yes, the government is failing with this Corona virus epidemic  - potentially catastrophically - but as a fellow called John Rohm said 'Failure is not a single, cataclysmic event. You don't fail overnight. Instead, failure is a few errors in judgement, repeated every day.' and I think that's proving true here. The erosion of public health budgets, the centralization of planning, the reliance on a coterie of favoured experts, etc, etc,. Each on its own wasn't a disaster, but over time....here we are. And unfortunately for Johnson, he was holding the parcel when the music stopped. But even then....the whole government response has been terribly lacking in direction,

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, Retsdon said:

But even then....the whole government response has been terribly lacking in direction,

You really don't like the British government do you.

When you look at the Furlough that's been brought in, the Nightingale hospitals that have been built someone must have direction and planning.

Things in hindsight can always have been done better but that's the beauty of hindsight. 

If you compare us with Italy,  Spain,  France the USA then I don't see how we are failing, Japan are apparently struggling for Hospital beds, I've no idea how this is effecting the likes of Saudi or the middle east, Iran was on the news but I haven't seen it mentioned for a while.

People are dying every day but they always do, it's not normally on the news every day but hopefully we are getting on top of things?

[Lord v]

16 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Good post, btw. But I think it goes back further than 3 months. As I posted before, the government did have a plan  - it was the 2012 WHO mandated plan for dealing with an 'unknown' flu epidemic and the basic tenet of the plan was to hold the fort until the arrival of a vaccine. But Covid-19 isnt' flu, there aren't the mitigating drugs like Tamiflu or whateve,r and a vaccine is not an adaption on an exisiting one, but an invention. In other words the plan was for the wrong disease. 

I'll also let Johnson's government off the hook for an initially slow response because quite honestly, their 'scientific advice' was and has been atrocious -basically flying in the face of WHO recommendations and the direct lessons from China. That might be because so many of the current scientific advisory team were instrumental in drawing up the 2012 plan and having invested in it were loathe to abandon it. In any  event, the government was forced to do a screeching U turn on the lock down thing, and would probably like to do an equally screeching one on the testing. But these things require planning and infrastructure and can't be just conjured up from thin air.

So yes, the government is failing with this Corona virus epidemic  - potentially catastrophically - but as a fellow called John Rohm said 'Failure is not a single, cataclysmic event. You don't fail overnight. Instead, failure is a few errors in judgement, repeated every day.' and I think that's proving true here. The erosion of public health budgets, the centralization of planning, the reliance on a coterie of favoured experts, etc, etc,. Each on its own wasn't a disaster, but over time....here we are. And unfortunately for Johnson, he was holding the parcel when the music stopped. But even then....the whole government response has been terribly lacking in direction,

Lessons from China is an interesting one. While I have no particular reason to doubt their modelling post identification of Covid I cannot see a strong case to state they were quick off the mark to identify the problem. 

The odds are stacked against identification of a new disease that has the same symptoms as bog standard flu. 

We know that this disease hits the elderly hard, unfortunately so does flu. The rates of smoking in China are high, as is pollution and these are both things that exacerbate respiratory disease. I don't know what the death rate from standard flu in China is, but I doubt its low. 

So against this background statistical noise you are reliant on individual physicians spotting a pattern of a high(er) number of critical cases that fall outside the norm. While humans are good at spotting patterns, it takes time to do so especially against such noise. 

Therefore it would be fairly low statistical likelyhood that this was caught as rapidly as seems to be assumed. 

This also discounts the political and social pressures that we know existed to suppress the initial information. 

There is a natural curve to diseases as they hit a population and spread. I think it's distinctly possible that Wuhan may have been some way through that curve before it was spotted. This would be borne out by a high number of asymptomatic cases for the disease, something we are seeing elsewhere in places that are conducting mass testing. 

While I don't think it's been around for as long as anecdata would have you believe (humans are too good at spotting patterns for that) I also really can't see that China as an entity was all over this as rapidly as seems to be being assumed. 

I'm not quite sure where that leaves us (or indeed the world) other than that we probably need another 12 months data to sift out the the background noise. 

I would agree that holding onto an outmoded plan because of intellectual investment is significantly more likely than any grand conspiracy. However my point around the three month statement is that once an error is identified, making that screeching U turn is not an immediate thing as you also state. 

Whilst on that subject I do have a slight issue with the phrase 'science' being thrown around like it's some homogeneous agreement of experts when nothing could be further from the truth. Coupled with that is the adoption of the IC model as being the 'right' one when there are several others out there much less pessimistic. Of course, as a government it makes absolute sense to adopt the most pessimistic model as per the adage 'plan for the worst, hope for the best' but that is not clearly communicated by such binary and emotive statements thrown around by the popular press. 

My background is in hydrology, flooding and drainage. Essentially the application of statistical modelling to real world scenarios. I am therefore wary about laying blame at one particular point as the weak points for a failure (in general) either occurs in the model, poor application of the model to the scenario or delivery of the solutions advised (or joy of joys all three). Basically the 'science', 'government' and 'supply /industry/ NHS' in this case.

If that is the case on a relatively limited variable model compared to the epidemiological models required to map a relatively unknown disease spread then the opportunity for error at any of those points must be compounded. Add in the exponential nature of a disease then honestly you are fighting an uphill battle. 

The government has fingers in all the pies of course so it is the easiest to blame, plus they are elected so have to take it on the chin. The NHS is currently sacrosanct, but has been recognised both internally and externally as not the most efficient organisation it could be. Industry is by necessity self serving. 'Science' - not a homogeneous mass of correct answers. 

To expand on your Rohm point, if you really wanted to drill to the 'truth' and 'cullpibility' then you must consider a butterfly flapping it's wings. Basically swinging back to my point in the first post that every country is individual in its makeup.  

Despite this the crux of the analysis of your point would be asking what informed the strategy in different countries around the world, was it the same plan, or different? Either answer gives rise to different questions and line of inquiry and would largely help identify what I feel is the nub of the government performance issue: "did they do the best they could with what they had?" 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Lord v
SPG