Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[two sheds]

In a way it doesn't matter if his target of 100,000 daily tests isn't achieved by the end of the month because the mere fact of having such a large target means it is likely significantly larger testing will by then be available. Big hairy goals have that effect so even a failure to achieve the absolute target can still be a success if we manage to test 60,000 a day or 80,000 a day, compared to what we are doing at the moment.

If that were true he should have made the target 1 million daily then they'd be testing 600,000 or 800,000 a day

One of the problems with targets is that you need some way to reach them, otherwise they're no good. Plucking targets out of the air is useless, as with teaching targets.

 

[teqniq]

Wrt the NHS 'There is no magic money tree'. Except when there is.

 

[elbows]

And on that note the last question brought up that Johnson was on about 250,000 tests a day, and they were wondering if that target had now beed dropped.

Answer was basically that they still aspire to that, but 100,000 is the commitment for the end of the month, and Hancock didnt want to go further than that with the commitment now.

 

[elbows]

Wrt the NHS 'There is no magic money tree'. Except when there is.

With everything, not just the NHS. All the bullshit that was dusted off and wheeled out for the austerity years went straight down the shitter because, as we always knew, its about political will and economic ideology and choice of priorities and whether things can be gotten away with if you stretch them out over a long period. Much like the rates of various things make big differences to epidemics, so the rate at which people are sacrificed under capitalisms austerity measures are key as to whether its a sustainable approach for the powers that be or not. In this situation, the rules changed overnight, and it is a strange new world that features the return of some old friends that went missing after what was labelled in this country as the death of the post-war consensus.

 

[belboid]

I'd personally prefer the national broadcaster broadcast what is a pretty fucking important presser live rather than relying on Rupert Murdoch, but hey.

Why would they rely on Rupert Murdoch? They're there and watching it and broadcasting it (on various channels) already. What has been said of note? On DV all he said was "I will look at all options to keep people safe - especially women and children in homes where somebody is abusive,"

 

[smokedout]

Sounds like some of the tests they were looking at ordering have failed their validation tests.

We haven't heard much mention in recent days of the 3.5 million antibody tests that were supposed to be available in Boots a week ago.

 

[cupid_stunt]

We haven't heard much mention in recent days of the 3.5 million antibody tests that were supposed to be available in Boots a week ago.

Those tests needed testing first, the government had hope they could be used within about a week, they never said they would be available in Boots in that time frame.

 

[weltweit]

If that were true he should have made the target 1 million daily then they'd be testing 600,000 or 800,000 a day

Targets have to have some basis in reality though.

One of the problems with targets is that you need some way to reach them, otherwise they're no good. Plucking targets out of the air is useless, as with teaching targets.

I think he does think he can see a way to get to 100,000 tests per day, time will tell if he is misguided.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If that were true he should have made the target 1 million daily then they'd be testing 600,000 or 800,000 a day

One of the problems with targets is that you need some way to reach them, otherwise they're no good. Plucking targets out of the air is useless, as with teaching targets.

Yep. Same with the 'deaths target' of 20,000. Aside from being dismally unambitious, it was flawed in its very concept. The target should be zero. You don't get that, but it's what you aim for.

 

[two sheds]

The other problem with targets is that they can be used just to deflect criticism "well we've got a target now" and when the target isn't met "ah well there was a problem with the supplier, we've got another target now"

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The other problem with targets is that they can be used just to deflect criticism "well we've got a target now" and when the target isn't met "ah well there was a problem with the supplier, we've got another target now"

Or, as in the case of deaths, you set a 'target' at a place you think there is a good chance of being better than anyway. Look - fewer than 20,000 dead in this first wave, didn't we do well!

 

[Brainaddict]

My brother works in policy in the NHS. I told him they could have written off the debt any time they felt like it. He didn't believe me.

 

[two sheds]

Yep. Same with the 'deaths target' of 20,000. Aside from being dismally unambitious, it was flawed in its very concept. The target should be zero. You don't get that, but it's what you aim for.

A target of zero doesn't help either though. You have to calculate backwards from what you can actually achieve to make them realistic and achievable. They never do this - they just pluck them out of the air. Control limits (process behaviour limits) versus targets as per W. Edwards Deming. I know it looks like an abstract point but it's fundamental.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A target of zero doesn't help either though. You have to calculate backwards from what you can actually achieve to make them realistic and achievable. They never do this - they just pluck them out of the air. Control limits (process behaviour limits) versus targets as per W. Edwards Deming. I know it looks like an abstract point but it's fundamental.

At the start, a target of zero could have made sense. It's basically what South Korea did, and it's got its cases right down with fewer than 200 dead. That's as good as zero in the wider scheme of things.

Of course, the later you leave setting any target, the more realistic you have to be about how things have already spread, but then you set a target of 'not letting it get any worse than it is now' (bearing in mind the time lag). And - crucially - not allowing a single person to die because there wasn't the equipment or personnel to help them with, which is about what Germany is currently achieving. So you redefine your zero to 'no unnecessary excess deaths from the point when we realised what we needed to do'. The UK is failing in that as well of course.

But then here in the UK any target is meaningless due to the lack of testing. Nobody knows how bad it really is.

 

[Orang Utan]

How can the man in charge of the NHS wipe its own debts? I would like to know so I can wipe my own debts

 

[elbows]

But then here in the UK any target is meaningless due to the lack of testing. Nobody knows how bad it really is.

I await the first release of results from Porton Down serological surveys (antibody tests) with much interest - a matter of days apparently, although I dont know how indicative the first results will be, I will always want more data.

 

[two sheds]

Or, as in the case of deaths, you set a 'target' at a place you think there is a good chance of being better than anyway. Look - fewer than 20,000 dead in this first wave, didn't we do well!

Yes indeed sorry, fair point. Also a target of 20,000 deaths is is effectively saying they're planning to allow 20,000 people to die.

 

[Artaxerxes]

How can the man in charge of the NHS wipe its own debts? I would like to know so I can wipe my own debts

Shift+Delete on the spreadsheet file.

 

[Azrael]

At the start, a target of zero could have made sense. It's basically what South Korea did, and it's got its cases right down with fewer than 200 dead. That's as good as zero in the wider scheme of things.

Of course, the later you leave setting any target, the more realistic you have to be about how things have already spread, but then you set a target of 'not letting it get any worse than it is now' (bearing in mind the time lag). And - crucially - not allowing a single person to die because there wasn't the equipment or personnel to help them with, which is about what Germany is currently achieving. So you redefine your zero to 'no unnecessary excess deaths from the point when we realised what we needed to do'. The UK is failing in that as well of course.

But then here in the UK any target is meaningless due to the lack of testing. Nobody knows how bad it really is.

Exactly. South Korea tried to save every life, and even after they had terrible luck with that cult, their achievement to date's remarkable. Whitehall knowingly allowed containment to fail, accepting a horrific death toll to in pursuit of a goal so politically toxic not even Trump dare refer to it by name now. Fundamentally different thinking.

And now they admit they don't even know how long any acquired immunity lasts!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Anyhow. Didn't feel like clapping tonight. Feel like Fridgemagnet did last week. Just too angry to clap. Partly just in a foul mood today, partly due to seeing The S*n this morning telling everyone to do it. Feels like an empty gesture this week, clapping an organisation that has been betrayed. Felt like booing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And now they admit they don't even know how long any acquired immunity lasts!

We've known all along that we don't know that, though. Yet again, they reveal something anybody with internet access has known for weeks.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It's worse than it was last week - it's been declared as a fucking state ritual.

 

[Azrael]

Regarding what I was saying earlier about Scotland, there are more details about the deaths reporting changes and issues in this piece:

Scottish Government changes how COVID-19 deaths are counted

In future “suspected” deaths both in hospital and in the community will be counted in the official figures

www.holyrood.com

Not that I'm claiming Scotland is perfect, later in that piece the resistance to a new strategy based on massively increased testing capacity is quite apparent.

"The thought that [testing] somehow slows the virus or is a part of strategy to prevent transmission is a fallacy, I’m afraid." Dr Catherine Calderwood, CMO of Scotland.

Wow, just wow. This statement not only ignores a ton of clinical data, it ignores basic infection control measures that've been with us for over a century. It directly contradicts the advice of the WHO, the Lancet and the BMJ. Incredibly, it appears that Bute House are now more dogmatic about this than Whitehall.

Just goes to show the problem isn't Cummings and his weirdos: it goes deep into the medical establishment, while being at-odds with our most prestigious medical journals. Due to the extraordinary weight doctors' words have, the orthodoxy you've highlighted before can be best fought by medical authorities, and they've got to move fast.

 

[Azrael]

We've known all along that we don't know that, though. Yet again, they reveal something anybody with internet access has known for weeks.

Of course, but those in power admitting it themselves is a helluva step.

 

[weltweit]

Azrael I forget the name of the medical advisory committee group in England but I do recall that they had apparently been having massive arguments amongst themselves about ideal policy, while at the time Whitty was presenting to the cameras as if opinions were established. Perhaps this Scottish CMO is one of the outliers, where opinions are concerned?

 

[Artaxerxes]

Britain’s health minister promised a tenfold increase in the number of daily tests for coronavirus by the end of the month after the government faced criticism for failing to roll out mass checks for health workers and the public.

We'll do it for real this time pinkie swear

 

[Azrael]

Azrael I forget the name of the medical advisory committee group in England but I do recall that they had apparently been having massive arguments amongst themselves about ideal policy, while at the time Whitty was presenting to the cameras as if opinions were established. Perhaps this Scottish CMO is one of the outliers, where opinions are concerned?

She'll certainly be challenged by Devi Sridhar, Professor of Public Heath at Edinburgh, who, along with three of her colleagues, have joined the Scottish Government's advisory group.

That's positive, but doesn't change how incredible it is for Scotland's CMO to make such an unequivocally wrong statement at this stage, when even the Mail's publishing leaders demanding mass testing. Only dogma can explain this, and any inquiry will have to discover how it went so deep, with such disastrous consequences.

 

[Azrael]

I won't link the Mail here, but their front page has an article titled: "So who IS to blame for testing fiasco? Medical chief Chris Whitty and science adviser Patrick Vallance are in the firing line as Public Health England passes the buck insisting it has 'done its part' "

That they couldn't see they were being set up if it all went wrong speaks volumes for their political naivete. Can't say I've an ounce of sympathy, they deserve it, but can't allow a cordon sanitaire to protect the politicians who bowed to their advice.

 

[Brainaddict]

How can the man in charge of the NHS wipe its own debts? I would like to know so I can wipe my own debts

If it was money the government owed to itself they can do what the hell they want with it. The only issue with cancelling such debt at some point is the confidence of markets, but since markets are fucked anyway why worry about that now? You could probably get inflation if you cancelled too much (because you're kind of printing money), but that also seems an unlikely problem right now.

They could have cancelled it before but they were using it to 'discipline' the NHS. The pricks.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If it was money the government owed to itself they can do what the hell they want with it. The only issue with cancelling such debt at some point is the confidence of markets, but since markets are fucked anyway why worry about that now? You could probably get inflation if you cancelled too much (because you're kind of printing money), but that also seems an unlikely problem right now.

They could have cancelled it before but they were using it to 'discipline' the NHS. The pricks.

Yep. Exactly this. In theory all the money made with QE will be destroyed at some point by paying it back. But if the economy is tanking, you don't need to cos nobody else is borrowing anyway - hence the near-zero interest rate.