Discussion:
Why did the UK govt stop Covid testing in its March U-turn?
Add Reply
Pamela
2020-05-22 10:25:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Whatever prompted the government in March to stop testing when the lockdown
was announced? That's exactly when testing should have been used to locate
infected people.


"UK government’s coronavirus response beset by mixed messages and U-turns"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/14/uk-governments-coronavirus-
response-beset-by-mixed-messages-and-u-turns
Keema's Nan
2020-05-22 10:55:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Whatever prompted the government in March to stop testing when the lockdown
was announced? That's exactly when testing should have been used to locate
infected people.
I think they definitely were receiving mixed messages.

The scientists were telling them the best approach to contain the virus.

The Bilderbergers/Bill Gates were advising to infect as many pensioners as
possible, in order to cut the population.

The US bigpharma lobbyists were demanding that the virus be allowed to spread
slowly in order to keep lockdown as long as possible until they had millions
of vaccine packs ready for distribution at exorbitant prices.

What else can a government do in this situation, but try and keep everyone
happy and therefore prevent a whistleblower from dumping the conspiracy shit
all over the place?
Pamela
2020-05-22 15:23:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Whatever prompted the government in March to stop testing when the
lockdown was announced? That's exactly when testing should have been
used to locate infected people.
I think they definitely were receiving mixed messages.
The scientists were telling them the best approach to contain the virus.
The Bilderbergers/Bill Gates were advising to infect as many pensioners
as possible, in order to cut the population.
The US bigpharma lobbyists were demanding that the virus be allowed to
spread slowly in order to keep lockdown as long as possible until they
had millions of vaccine packs ready for distribution at exorbitant
prices.
What else can a government do in this situation, but try and keep
everyone happy and therefore prevent a whistleblower from dumping the
conspiracy shit all over the place?
It would be fascinating to see what a public inquiry exposes at some time in
the future, although it will probably get nobbled by the government.

The current U-turn towards track & trace and the earlier U-turn away from
rapid herd immunity are explained as "advised by the science" although some
scientists are breaking ranks from this nonsense.

As I recall, Roger thinks there was never any government U-turn at all.
abelard
2020-05-23 17:34:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Whatever prompted the government in March to stop testing when the
lockdown was announced? That's exactly when testing should have been
used to locate infected people.
I think they definitely were receiving mixed messages.
The scientists were telling them the best approach to contain the virus.
The Bilderbergers/Bill Gates were advising to infect as many pensioners
as possible, in order to cut the population.
The US bigpharma lobbyists were demanding that the virus be allowed to
spread slowly in order to keep lockdown as long as possible until they
had millions of vaccine packs ready for distribution at exorbitant
prices.
What else can a government do in this situation, but try and keep
everyone happy and therefore prevent a whistleblower from dumping the
conspiracy shit all over the place?
It would be fascinating to see what a public inquiry exposes at some time in
the future, although it will probably get nobbled by the government.
The current U-turn towards track & trace and the earlier U-turn away from
rapid herd immunity are explained as "advised by the science" although some
scientists are breaking ranks from this nonsense.
As I recall, Roger thinks there was never any government U-turn at all.
only an idiot believes there is a 'u-turn'...
the belief comes from idiots who believe what governments tell them
--
www.abelard.org
Roger
2020-05-23 19:31:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Pamela
Whatever prompted the government in March to stop testing when the
lockdown was announced? That's exactly when testing should have been
used to locate infected people.
I think they definitely were receiving mixed messages.
The scientists were telling them the best approach to contain the virus.
The Bilderbergers/Bill Gates were advising to infect as many pensioners
as possible, in order to cut the population.
The US bigpharma lobbyists were demanding that the virus be allowed to
spread slowly in order to keep lockdown as long as possible until they
had millions of vaccine packs ready for distribution at exorbitant
prices.
What else can a government do in this situation, but try and keep
everyone happy and therefore prevent a whistleblower from dumping the
conspiracy shit all over the place?
It would be fascinating to see what a public inquiry exposes at some time in
the future, although it will probably get nobbled by the government.
The current U-turn towards track & trace and the earlier U-turn away from
rapid herd immunity are explained as "advised by the science" although some
scientists are breaking ranks from this nonsense.
As I recall, Roger thinks there was never any government U-turn at all.
only an idiot believes there is a 'u-turn'...
the belief comes from idiots who believe what governments tell them
That's correct. As ever my reference is the plan they published at the end of February and the speech on the 12th of March where a) Boris Johnson says additional measures will be introduced and b) the chief scientific officer explained how in the delay phase the aim is to limit the spread of the disease to avoid overloading the health services until eventually herd immunity stops the spread.

Many observers, I don't know whether mistakenly or deliberately, claimed that the government were going to do nothing, we just had to get it like measles.

Over the following 12 days as measures were racked up these observers appeared to try cover their tracks by claiming the government was doing a U-turn.

That's my take; I'm not going to bother defending it, but if anybody is interested it's still possible to see that speech in it's entirety on YouTube. I can't see any U turn between what was anticipated there and what was to come. It's 45 mins long; I guess that's the main problem, most people these days can't be arsed to be attentive to anything more than 5 minutes.
Pamela
2020-05-23 19:57:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
That's correct. As ever my reference is the plan they published at the
end of February and the speech on the 12th of March where a) Boris
Johnson says additional measures will be introduced and b) the chief
scientific officer explained how in the delay phase the aim is to limit
the spread of the disease to avoid overloading the health services until
eventually herd immunity stops the spread.
Many observers, I don't know whether mistakenly or deliberately, claimed
that the government were going to do nothing, we just had to get it like
measles.
Over the following 12 days as measures were racked up these observers
appeared to try cover their tracks by claiming the government was doing
a U-turn.
That's my take; I'm not going to bother defending it, but if anybody is
interested it's still possible to see that speech in it's entirety on
YouTube. I can't see any U turn between what was anticipated there and
what was to come. It's 45 mins long; I guess that's the main problem,
most people these days can't be arsed to be attentive to anything more
than 5 minutes.
So you're still rowing that boat.

The Cummings approved herd-immunity plan was exactly as you now deny. For
all it's faults, Ferguson's model showed the consequences which panicked
Dominic with the British government who flipped 180 degrees within a couple
of days.

There later had to be a lot of weird statements (like "face masks are bad")
because the UK government had made its response too late and also had too few
resources available than it has been claiming it had.

Despite a 2 week period to get ready, the UK has as many deaths per million
as wholly-unprepared Italy.
Roger
2020-05-23 20:32:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
So you're still rowing that boat.
Yep. Primarily because I have not seen anything that contradicts it other than conjectures and speculation made by political opponents.
Post by Pamela
The Cummings approved herd-immunity plan was exactly as you now deny.
So you keep saying. So when was this plan announced? When did it actually take place? Or is it just a case of 'somebody somewhere heard him in a corridor say that....'.

There is no sign of this in the plan published in Feburary, no sign of it in the speech on the 12th March....and 2 days later you claim it was ditched. You could say it was one of perhaps several options that never got a serious look in?
.
Post by Pamela
There later had to be a lot of weird statements (like "face masks are bad")
because the UK government had made its response too late and also had too few
resources available than it has been claiming it had.
Despite a 2 week period to get ready, the UK has as many deaths per million
as wholly-unprepared Italy.
By my accounting Italy has at least 30% more deaths per capita than the UK. Italy only counts deaths were people had tested positive. People in care home were not being tested. Also, only twin tests are valid in Italy, it took my co worker 16 days to get his done before he could return to work. Figures for excess deaths will not be available for about 6 months because the statistical data arrives late (there is still none at all for April) and in any case is only provisional because many certificates roll in weeks later anyway.

Your '2 weeks' is bollox. The UK was 2 weeks behind Italy on the curve but 4 days behind it on switching to delay phase. Within a week it was about on par, and therefore ahead on the curve. The UK achieved full lockdown before Italy, which only arrived at it's peak on the 26th.

At the end of the day, despite the fact there are many lessons to be learnt from Coronavirus and many criticisms to be made, you are focusing all your attention on trumped up stories and fake news about a person who has probably had very little to do with covid-19.

Just so happens that this person HAS had a lot to do with Brexit....something you are vehemently opposed to. Would it be cynical of me to suggest that your judgement is clouded :D
Pamela
2020-05-24 09:25:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
So you're still rowing that boat.
Yep. Primarily because I have not seen anything that contradicts it
other than conjectures and speculation made by political opponents.
Post by Pamela
The Cummings approved herd-immunity plan was exactly as you now deny.
So you keep saying. So when was this plan announced? When did it
actually take place? Or is it just a case of 'somebody somewhere heard
him in a corridor say that....'.
There is no sign of this in the plan published in Feburary, no sign of
it in the speech on the 12th March....and 2 days later you claim it was
ditched. You could say it was one of perhaps several options that never
got a serious look in? .
That's right. The Ferguson paper immediately changed everything and the
UK govt turned on a sixpence. Seems you have missed this although every
other observer notes it.
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
There later had to be a lot of weird statements (like "face masks are
bad") because the UK government had made its response too late and also
had too few resources available than it has been claiming it had.
Despite a 2 week period to get ready, the UK has as many deaths per
million as wholly-unprepared Italy.
By my accounting Italy has at least 30% more deaths per capita than the
UK. Italy only counts deaths were people had tested positive. People in
care home were not being tested. Also, only twin tests are valid in
Italy, it took my co worker 16 days to get his done before he could
return to work. Figures for excess deaths will not be available for
about 6 months because the statistical data arrives late (there is still
none at all for April) and in any case is only provisional because many
certificates roll in weeks later anyway.
Your '2 weeks' is bollox. The UK was 2 weeks behind Italy on the curve
but 4 days behind it on switching to delay phase.
Not according to this chart which clearly shows you are wrong:
https://tinyurl.com/euro-response-timeline
Please try and stick to the facts.
Post by Roger
Within a week it was
about on par, and therefore ahead on the curve. The UK achieved full
lockdown before Italy, which only arrived at it's peak on the 26th.
At the end of the day, despite the fact there are many lessons to be
learnt from Coronavirus and many criticisms to be made, you are focusing
all your attention on trumped up stories and fake news about a person
who has probably had very little to do with covid-19.
Just so happens that this person HAS had a lot to do with
Brexit....something you are vehemently opposed to. Would it be cynical
of me to suggest that your judgement is clouded :D
Don't start a pity party for Brexit. The disastrous UK response to Covid
stands on its own -- except perhaps Brexit distracting attention when
Covid should have been the top priority.

For death rates per million I gave, check the many web sites. When I
posted the UK and Italy were both at 541 deaths per million.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-05-23 08:01:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Whatever prompted the government in March to stop testing when the lockdown
was announced? That's exactly when testing should have been used to locate
infected people.
Don't you mena track *and* trace? It's the second of these that is the bugbear particularly in a world where the tracing has to be done manually. Can you remember the people you have interacted with over say the last 24 hours? I can't! Did you know all of them personally? I don't!

Not everyone has a smart phone. How many are held under pay as you go arrangements? How many have been handed over as a gift by the original user? My son hands over his company supplied smart phone to his kids every 3 years. No doubt they eventually hand them over to their mates.

Tracing is not as straight forward as it sounds.

Regardless of the infinite ingenuity if technology testing has just one flaw. No test will cure a single infection.

When this government came into power as would have been the case in the event of any government. A completely new situation that poll-axed the entire programme of a new government. They would have been faced with a number of possible strategies none fully effective some more effective than others.

Judgements have to be made within a really unknown context. They who attempt to follow every route map would surely end up following none.

What is it that you want? 3600 deaths is a hell of a AFAICS things are going well. Numbers are coming down Hope is rising. At the moment you can ask for little more except the silver bullet a vaccine or therapeutic pharmaceutical. Although these still seem some way off there are also hopes in that direction.

At this moment you can hope for little more. Labour would not do a better job! Of course you can make international comparisons providing that you are capable of comparing like with like. A very difficult thing to do.

It's as I was discussing with a Swiss friend over the phone ust the other day. Switzerland just has not got a Greater London or a Birmingham, or a Greater Manchester, or a Leeds Bradford, or a Merseyside, Teeside, Tyneside, Cities the size of Nottingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh.

These differences do matter in this context.
Post by Pamela
"UK government’s coronavirus response beset by mixed messages and U-turns"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/14/uk-governments-coronavirus-
response-beset-by-mixed-messages-and-u-turns
What does this prove?
Roger
2020-05-23 09:13:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Whatever prompted the government in March to stop testing when the lockdown
was announced? That's exactly when testing should have been used to locate
infected people.
The U-turn is in the minds of fanatics. Testing policy changed as a result of the change from containment phase to delay phase, as announced on the 12th March as a result of following events in the rest of the world (Italy abandoning containment on the 8th March, WHO declaring a pandemic on the 1th etc.).

During the containment phase testing is need to find people who need to be contained lest asymptomatic people are wandering around and unknowingly spreading the disease.

However, when you are in lockdown and telling everybody to stay at home that becomes superfluous; infected or not the person should stay at home.

Except of course for essential workers. You need to test them; and you have 1.5 million in the NHS alone. And you do not have the testing facilities, nor can you create them at short notice. At that point it is better not to test the public at large but tell them to stay at home and use your limited testing resources at the front line. More testing at the front would have helped, testing at home would not.

An eventual enquiry will, I hope, evidence the fact that recommendations to setup test and trace facilities before an eventual endemic arrives, because once you have one it's too late, have gone on deaf ears. But I would also hope that it delves into the reasons for those deaf ears; not because Health managers did not think it important, but because taking money to do this from anywhere else would of caused other suffering. The Health service is struggling to cover day to day needs; it can't prepare for the future.

If you want to be effective in your criticism of the government, maybe take them task on their promise to increase health care spending ;-)
Keema's Nan
2020-05-23 09:22:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Whatever prompted the government in March to stop testing when the lockdown
was announced? That's exactly when testing should have been used to locate
infected people.
The U-turn is in the minds of fanatics. Testing policy changed as a result of
the change from containment phase to delay phase, as announced on the 12th
March as a result of following events in the rest of the world (Italy
abandoning containment on the 8th March, WHO declaring a pandemic on the 1th
etc.).
During the containment phase testing is need to find people who need to be
contained lest asymptomatic people are wandering around and unknowingly
spreading the disease.
However, when you are in lockdown and telling everybody to stay at home that
becomes superfluous; infected or not the person should stay at home.
Unless you are Dominic Cummings of course.
Post by Roger
Except of course for essential workers. You need to test them; and you have
1.5 million in the NHS alone. And you do not have the testing facilities, nor
can you create them at short notice. At that point it is better not to test
the public at large but tell them to stay at home and use your limited
testing resources at the front line. More testing at the front would have
helped, testing at home would not.
An eventual enquiry will
Be a complete whitewash.
Post by Roger
, I hope, evidence the fact that recommendations to
setup test and trace facilities before an eventual endemic arrives, because
once you have one it's too late, have gone on deaf ears. But I would also
hope that it delves into the reasons for those deaf ears; not because Health
managers did not think it important, but because taking money to do this from
anywhere else would of caused other suffering. The Health service is
struggling to cover day to day needs; it can't prepare for the future.
If you want to be effective in your criticism of the government,
Don’t do it on usenet.
Post by Roger
maybe take
them task on their promise to increase health care spending ;-)
Pamela
2020-05-23 10:43:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Whatever prompted the government in March to stop testing when the
lock
down
Post by Pamela
was announced? That's exactly when testing should have been used to
lo
cate
Post by Pamela
infected people.
The U-turn is in the minds of fanatics. Testing policy changed as a
result of the change from containment phase to delay phase, as announced
on the 12th March as a result of following events in the rest of the
world (Italy abandoning containment on the 8th March, WHO declaring a
pandemic on the 1th etc.).
During the containment phase testing is need to find people who need to
be contained lest asymptomatic people are wandering around and
unknowingly spreading the disease.
However, when you are in lockdown and telling everybody to stay at home
that becomes superfluous; infected or not the person should stay at
home.
German authorities explain the purpose of testing during the lockdown is
to find infected people and stop them in order to reduce the R number.
Post by Roger
Except of course for essential workers. You need to test them; and you
have 1.5 million in the NHS alone. And you do not have the testing
facilities, nor can you create them at short notice. At that point it is
better not to test the public at large but tell them to stay at home and
use your limited testing resources at the front line. More testing at
the front would have helped, testing at home would not.
An eventual enquiry will, I hope, evidence the fact that recommendations
to setup test and trace facilities before an eventual endemic arrives,
because once you have one it's too late, have gone on deaf ears. But I
would also hope that it delves into the reasons for those deaf ears; not
because Health managers did not think it important, but because taking
money to do this from anywhere else would of caused other suffering. The
Health service is struggling to cover day to day needs; it can't prepare
for the future.
If you want to be effective in your criticism of the government, maybe
take them task on their promise to increase health care spending ;-)
Perhaps you should pass that message on to your political masters.
Roger
2020-05-23 12:37:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
German authorities explain the purpose of testing during the lockdown is
to find infected people and stop them in order to reduce the R number.
According to Angela Merkel Germans did not go into lockdown, although oddly she is now talking about easing out of it :D

So presumably there is something the Germans could have been stopped from doing. In the UK advice for Asymptomatics was stay at home, regardless of test outcome.

Having said that Germany DO have a much greater testing capacity and nearly twice as many NHS beds and intensive care places per capita.

This is what the UK needs to look at; not optimising the health service for day to day requirements, but building it up so that it has the capacity to deal with these emergencies.

But also ensuring that it has a reliable expandable supply chain...most medical supplies have a limited shelf life and this places limits on stockpiling; particularly for things like the reagents that have been the key to testing capacity.

Much as you would like to heap all the blame on your nemesis Cummings, he has nothing to do with the problems that face the health service.

However problems there are, deep structural ones that require long term solutions, something that many people don't seem to want to admit.

The biggest 'threat' from this government is that they will use this as an opportunity to open up more avenues for the private healthcare sector. Boris Johnson pledged to invest in the NHS, that is something he should be held to.
Pamela
2020-05-23 13:03:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
German authorities explain the purpose of testing during the lockdown
is to find infected people and stop them in order to reduce the R
number.
According to Angela Merkel Germans did not go into lockdown, although
oddly she is now talking about easing out of it :D
So presumably there is something the Germans could have been stopped
from doing. In the UK advice for Asymptomatics was stay at home,
regardless of test outcome.
Having said that Germany DO have a much greater testing capacity and
nearly twice as many NHS beds and intensive care places per capita.
This is what the UK needs to look at; not optimising the health service
for day to day requirements, but building it up so that it has the
capacity to deal with these emergencies.
But also ensuring that it has a reliable expandable supply chain...most
medical supplies have a limited shelf life and this places limits on
stockpiling; particularly for things like the reagents that have been
the key to testing capacity.
Much as you would like to heap all the blame on your nemesis Cummings,
he has nothing to do with the problems that face the health service.
However problems there are, deep structural ones that require long term
solutions, something that many people don't seem to want to admit.
The biggest 'threat' from this government is that they will use this as
an opportunity to open up more avenues for the private healthcare
sector. Boris Johnson pledged to invest in the NHS, that is something he
should be held to.
A lot of truth in that.

The NHS was under-resourced, run down and reacted too slowly. The UK's
reputation as a global leader in readiness aganist epidemics (flu, SARS or
otherwise) turned out to be false. Stockpiles were far too low.

Am not sure sourcing turning all production from the UK is wise as it
encourage mnonopoly behaviour. It might be better to have a large
stockpile a;long with a plan with contracts for massive local production
when required.

I don't much like Cummings but that is another matter. However he
represents a political presence at scientific meetings which should not be
there in any circumstance. A future public inquiry will determine if
Cummings was been behind some of the failed decisions (such as rapid herd
immunity) but right now all we can askis to keep politics out of science.
Roger
2020-05-23 20:07:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
The NHS was under-resourced, run down and reacted too slowly. The UK's
reputation as a global leader in readiness aganist epidemics (flu, SARS or
otherwise) turned out to be false. Stockpiles were far too low.
Stockpiles were at their projected levels. The trouble is that even with rotation you can only stockpile so much before shelf life limit kick in.

In order to assure supply you need a supply chain you can rely on. If you buy from a facility that works one shift 5 days a week, you have the possibility of ramping production up fourfold if you go 24x7.
Post by Pamela
Am not sure sourcing turning all production from the UK is wise as it
encourage mnonopoly behaviour.
Health services consume a lot of material, multiple suppliers are possible.


It might be better to have a large
Post by Pamela
stockpile a;long with a plan with contracts for massive local production
when required.
You cannot create production from nothing. It is easy to scale up production in an emergency (as long as the plant is not already running 24x7). You mix the staff who know the plant with other workers, where necessary using people with relevant related experience. Typically, when you set up a new production facility, you reckon about 6 months to have things running smoothly. Obviously in an emergency you can have some production in weeks; case in point in this crisis there are now extra facilities in Europe for producing PPE, reagents and auto testing machines. But they were needed in less than the 6 to 8 weeks it took.

In the example I gave of the line working 8x5, it would be possible to immediately boost production by at least 50% by overtime and weekend working. If these workers were flanked by new workers familiar with the type of work, if not the specific case, then in a couple of weeks they would be well on their way to 24x7.
Post by Pamela
I don't much like Cummings but that is another matter. However he
represents a political presence at scientific meetings which should not be
there in any circumstance.
Eh? SAGE should not meet the politicians? In any case, Cummings is not a politician.


A future public inquiry will determine if
Post by Pamela
Cummings was been behind some of the failed decisions (such as rapid herd
immunity) but right now all we can askis to keep politics out of science.
Rapid Herd Immunity? AFAIK government policy in the delay phase has always been to delay diffusion to within health service capacity. I would suggest that attempts to suggest otherwise are deliberate false interpretations bordering on fake news.

However, in any situation Cummings has no responsibility or authority. If he made an erroneous suggestion to a minister, and the minister acts on that advice rather than the government scientists, it is the ministers responsibility.
Pamela
2020-05-23 20:29:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
The NHS was under-resourced, run down and reacted too slowly. The UK's
reputation as a global leader in readiness aganist epidemics (flu, SARS
o
r
Post by Pamela
otherwise) turned out to be false. Stockpiles were far too low.
Stockpiles were at their projected levels. The trouble is that even with
rotation you can only stockpile so much before shelf life limit kick in.
In order to assure supply you need a supply chain you can rely on. If
you buy from a facility that works one shift 5 days a week, you have the
possibility of ramping production up fourfold if you go 24x7.
Post by Pamela
Am not sure sourcing turning all production from the UK is wise as it
encourage mnonopoly behaviour.
Health services consume a lot of material, multiple suppliers are possible.
Post by Pamela
It might be better to have a large
stockpile a;long with a plan with contracts for massive local
production when required.
You cannot create production from nothing. It is easy to scale up
production in an emergency (as long as the plant is not already running
24x7). You mix the staff who know the plant with other workers, where
necessary using people with relevant related experience. Typically, when
you set up a new production facility, you reckon about 6 months to have
things running smoothly. Obviously in an emergency you can have some
production in weeks; case in point in this crisis there are now extra
facilities in Europe for producing PPE, reagents and auto testing
machines. But they were needed in less than the 6 to 8 weeks it took.
In the example I gave of the line working 8x5, it would be possible to
immediately boost production by at least 50% by overtime and weekend
working. If these workers were flanked by new workers familiar with the
type of work, if not the specific case, then in a couple of weeks they
would be well on their way to 24x7.
That's why there should be an emergency plan. Switching production is not
difficult or particularly slow if all the details and agreements have been
planned in advance. With a plan and agreed designs, one week to start
emergency production and two weeks to get up to speed is sufficient.
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
I don't much like Cummings but that is another matter. However he
represents a political presence at scientific meetings which should not
be there in any circumstance.
Eh? SAGE should not meet the politicians? In any case, Cummings is not a politician.
Those objections are irrelevant.
Post by Roger
A future public inquiry will determine if
Post by Pamela
Cummings was been behind some of the failed decisions (such as rapid
herd immunity) but right now all we can askis to keep politics out of
science.
Rapid Herd Immunity? AFAIK government policy in the delay phase has
always been to delay diffusion to within health service capacity.
Not at all . The inital plan, based on a lack of materials and
insufficient ICU beds, was to allow herd Covid sweep through the country
and rapidly create herd immunity. Only later did govt realise the cost in
lives of this crazy idea was too high and found that it could manage
supply & demand by flattening the peak requirement for ICU which then
became its policy.

Unfortunately the nursing homes had to be sacrificed to "save the NHS".
Post by Roger
I would suggest that attempts to suggest otherwise are deliberate false
interpretations bordering on fake news.
However, in any situation Cummings has no responsibility or authority.
If he made an erroneous suggestion to a minister, and the minister acts
on that advice rather than the government scientists, it is the
ministers responsibility.
I wonder why there are so many spirited denials that Cummings is not
influential with Boris. It happens all the time. For example Trump's
most trusted advisor (after Ivanka) is Jared who couldn't even get a
security clearance untik Trump overrode the authorities.
Roger
2020-05-23 20:39:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Eh? SAGE should not meet the politicians? In any case, Cummings is not a politician.
Those objections are irrelevant.
Why? Because you don't like them :D
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Rapid Herd Immunity? AFAIK government policy in the delay phase has
always been to delay diffusion to within health service capacity.
Not at all . The inital plan, based on a lack of materials and
insufficient ICU beds, was to allow herd Covid sweep through the country
and rapidly create herd immunity.
This is what you keep saying. The thing is the government didn't say it. So where is it coming from? Fantasy land? Fake news sites?
Post by Pamela
I wonder why there are so many spirited denials that Cummings is not
influential with Boris.
I didn't know there were. I think he is influential. But at the end of the day the buck stops with Boris, Cummings has zero authority or responsibility.
Keema's Nan
2020-05-24 07:38:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Eh? SAGE should not meet the politicians? In any case, Cummings is not a
politician.
Those objections are irrelevant.
Why? Because you don't like them :D
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Rapid Herd Immunity? AFAIK government policy in the delay phase has
always been to delay diffusion to within health service capacity.
Not at all . The inital plan, based on a lack of materials and
insufficient ICU beds, was to allow herd Covid sweep through the country
and rapidly create herd immunity.
This is what you keep saying. The thing is the government didn't say it. So
where is it coming from?
No. Robert Peston on ITV 12th March 2020.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-12/british-government-wants-uk-to-acquire-
coronavirus-herd-immunity-writes-robert-peston/

He had obviously been briefed by your mates and was told what to say, but
non-attributably.
Post by Roger
Fantasy land? Fake news sites?
Post by Pamela
I wonder why there are so many spirited denials that Cummings is not
influential with Boris.
I didn't know there were. I think he is influential. But at the end of the
day the buck stops with Boris, Cummings has zero authority or responsibility.
Pamela
2020-05-24 09:42:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 23 May 2020, Roger wrote (in
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Eh? SAGE should not meet the politicians? In any case, Cummings is
not a politician.
Those objections are irrelevant.
Why? Because you don't like them :D
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Rapid Herd Immunity? AFAIK government policy in the delay phase has
always been to delay diffusion to within health service capacity.
Not at all . The inital plan, based on a lack of materials and
insufficient ICU beds, was to allow herd Covid sweep through the
country and rapidly create herd immunity.
This is what you keep saying. The thing is the government didn't say
it. So where is it coming from?
No. Robert Peston on ITV 12th March 2020.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-12/british-government-wants-uk-to-
acquire-coronavirus-herd-immunity-writes-robert-peston/
He had obviously been briefed by your mates and was told what to say,
but non-attributably.
Roger has come to a unique understanding which no one else shares which he
believes is due to some special insight of his. It would be so much better
if he stuck to the facts and didn't invent his own history of events.

Everyone in this country saw the government switch away from its planned
rapid herd immunity once it had been pointed out how many deaths it involved.
Roger seems to say it never happened. Sigh.

Pamela
2020-05-24 09:21:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Eh? SAGE should not meet the politicians? In any case, Cummings is not a politician.
Those objections are irrelevant.
Why? Because you don't like them :D
Post by Pamela
Post by Roger
Rapid Herd Immunity? AFAIK government policy in the delay phase has
always been to delay diffusion to within health service capacity.
Not at all . The inital plan, based on a lack of materials and
insufficient ICU beds, was to allow herd Covid sweep through the
country and rapidly create herd immunity.
This is what you keep saying. The thing is the government didn't say it.
So where is it coming from? Fantasy land? Fake news sites?
Yes, the government didn't come right out and say it because it was too
politically explosive. Boris only went as far as to say families would
"lose loved ones before their time". The imlication of herd immunity
trickled out (now there are denials such an embarassing thing was ever
said).

However on 13th March (oh unlucky Friday), Sir Patrick spilt the beans.

"Britain's chief scientific adviser stoked controversy on Friday when he
said that about 40m people in the UK could need to catch the coronavirus
to build up "herd immunity" and prevent the disease coming back in the
future."

https://www.ft.com/content/38a81588-6508-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5

Ferguson and Imperial College quickly calcuated the number of deaths that
would mean and published their paper a few days later. The govt instantly
changed tack in a spectacular U-turn.
Post by Roger
Post by Pamela
I wonder why there are so many spirited denials that Cummings is not
influential with Boris.
I didn't know there were. I think he is influential. But at the end of
the day the buck stops with Boris, Cummings has zero authority or
responsibility.
Potestas, auctoritas, imperium. Carrie Symonds is another.
Loading...