Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[existentialist]

Its worth pointing out that one thing the UK government has been absolutely clear on from the start (and still are) is that you should work from home if you can. The conversation should pretty much end there.

The conversation DID very much end there

And she provided me with the perfect opportunity to say to the office team "I'm in charge here - talk to me if you need to sort anything out"

In a funny kind of way, it's a win. But I posted the story on here because of how I think it reflects this strange argumentum ab auctoritate mentality that seems to infest far too many minds. Particularly when the auctoritate in question is an overfed haystack with the cognitive capabilities of a burned-out trouserpress.

 

[Looby]

I had a thought today, that it is nearly time for the chimney sweep's yearly visit. Needed for the insurance and for (possibly) not burning the house down . He'll be in and out of peoples' houses, too.

Perhaps time to buy an electric slow cooker.

We’ve had two tradespeople in, one an oven repair and one fitting an outside tap. Both were pretty good, kept their distance, cleaned everything they touched etc.

 

[two sheds]

We’ve had two tradespeople in, one an oven repair and one fitting an outside tap. Both were pretty good, kept their distance, cleaned everything they touched etc.

Ah interesting, thanks. I'm sure he would be if/when he does come.

 

[flypanam]

Somehow this isn’t a surprise

Nearly 1,500 deaths in one day: UK ministers accused of downplaying Covid-19 peak

Official toll passed a thousand on 22 consecutive days – far more than daily briefings said

www.theguardian.com

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Some how this isn’t a surprise

Nearly 1,500 deaths in one day: UK ministers accused of downplaying Covid-19 peak

Official toll passed a thousand on 22 consecutive days – far more than daily briefings said

www.theguardian.com

That bit at the end about r hovering around 1 for longer than it needed to due to leakage and people gradually starting to break Lock down rules may be part of the story, but it misses out a lot: the rates of in-hospital transmission, inadequate ppe, failed cross-infection protocols, the spread to care homes due to untested discharges from hospitals, the general lack of testing.

Tbh not mentioning any of those things, which we know were massive (nobody was visiting care homes, for instance so the shocking, delayed explosion of deaths there aren't due to this kind of 'leakage') sounds rather Johnson-esque - it's our fault cos we didn't do lockdown well enough. I don't buy that at all.

 

[elbows]

The continuing saga of disgraceful levels of information supplied to the public regarding local outbreaks including hospital spread....

Nuneaton, the George Eliot hospital as per my previous posts on this in recent days. There has now been something on the BBC local news today about how they have closed a ward at that hospital. What a surprise, not. Official messages continue to be mealy-mouthed and padded with meaningless shit. I havent seen much in print yet, and the loss of a lot of local journalism in recent decades adds further hurt.



Regarding this extreme reticence when it comes to frankly iscussing hospital outbreaks, we also saw this repeatedly at that national level earlier in the pandemic. They wouldnt deny the possibility of spread within hospitals, and it would be acknowledged on rare occasion, but it was kept away from the general narrative. Even when big topics like the number of people that stayed away from hospitals were discussed, they were so much more comfortable talking about that as if it was a phenomenon only driven by peoples desire to save the NHS, as opposed to also being a sure sign of peoples well-founded fears of becoming infected in hospital.

We really need a revolution in attitudes towards information sharing and honest public discourse, especially at the local level, as a result of this pandemic. Demand the data we need to make sensible and responsible choices about our lives in the places we live and work.

 

[elbows]

That bit at the end about r hovering around 1 for longer than it needed to due to leakage and people gradually starting to break Lock down rules may be part of the story, but it misses out a lot: the rates of in-hospital transmission, inadequate ppe, failed cross-infection protocols, the spread to care homes due to untested discharges from hospitals, the general lack of testing.

Tbh not mentioning any of those things, which we know were massive (nobody was visiting care homes, for instance so the shocking, delayed explosion of deaths there aren't due to this kind of 'leakage') sounds rather Johnson-esque - it's our fault cos we didn't do lockdown well enough. I don't buy that at all.

It also misses out the regional variations that made a difference to the slope of the downward curve. The following graph only shows NHS England deaths because those are the ones I have to hand that are at a regional level that is also showing daily figures (ONS by region etc tend to be weekly figures) but it should be good enough to show what I'm on about. Note the steeper initial downwards trajectory of the 7 day moving average line for London (until ~ end April).



It also drove me mad that more journalists didnt look at ONS data more carefully and make more stories out of it all the way along. The headline angle in that article is a good example - the data for the rate of daily deaths at the peak in April was available after a few weeks ONS/death registration lag, so they could have told that part of the story before the end of April.

 

[elbows]

Which reminds me that another rant I need to have about information sharing in this pandemic involves London.

Since I am still on something of a holiday from the detail of this pandemic, now is not the time for me to be checking and quoting Sage minutes. But I'm pretty sure it is mentioned in some minutes or papers that that adherence to social distancing and lockdown was better in London than elsewhere, at least initially. This is not terribly surprising given that they made a point in those early days of telling everyone that London was weeks ahead of the rest of the country with its epidemic. And the information bit I need to rant about more when I can be bothered to fish out the exact detail, is that actually several other places were mentioned in early Sage minutes as having outbreaks. But they didnt bloody tell us and the people who live in those places at the time! I dont want to mention which places without checking my facts so sorry for being vague right now.

 

[teuchter]

I am interested in the idea that densely populated places like London might be more prone to a rapid outbreak but also more able to contain it because once lockdown starts, it's quite easy for people to stay ultra local in terms of shopping etc (they walk to the corner shop a few hundred metres away where most of the other customers are also very local, rather than driving 10 miles to a big supermarket with loads of people from a wide area). The graph might support that but I don't know if anything else does, or if anyone has looked at this idea seriously, or if this is just speculation.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The continuing saga of disgraceful levels of information supplied to the public regarding local outbreaks including hospital spread....

Nuneaton, the George Eliot hospital as per my previous posts on this in recent days. There has now been something on the BBC local news today about how they have closed a ward at that hospital. What a surprise, not. Official messages continue to be mealy-mouthed and padded with meaningless shit. I havent seen much in print yet, and the loss of a lot of local journalism in recent decades adds further hurt.



Regarding this extreme reticence when it comes to frankly iscussing hospital outbreaks, we also saw this repeatedly at that national level earlier in the pandemic. They wouldnt deny the possibility of spread within hospitals, and it would be acknowledged on rare occasion, but it was kept away from the general narrative. Even when big topics like the number of people that stayed away from hospitals were discussed, they were so much more comfortable talking about that as if it was a phenomenon only driven by peoples desire to save the NHS, as opposed to also being a sure sign of peoples well-founded fears of becoming infected in hospital.

We really need a revolution in attitudes towards information sharing and honest public discourse, especially at the local level, as a result of this pandemic. Demand the data we need to make sensible and responsible choices about our lives in the places we live and work.

There also needs to be a frank discussion about the failures of the NHS, not something anyone wanted to talk about as the workers on the ground were being turned into heroes. Clearly the necessary precondition for those failures was the chronic underfunding over decades, but it is also necessary to dig down into the detail to work out how and why bad decisions were taken or inadequate procedures were followed.

I think there is a duty to do that honestly and openly, both to stop it happening again and out of respect for the people who were killed by those failures.

 

[elbows]

By the way if I were telling the story covered by that Guardian article, I might be tempted to point out that the nature of the daily UK numbers they read out daily compared to the ONS (+ NRS for Scotland + NISRA for Northern Ireland), we are actually at the point where on some days the daily UK figure actually makes things look worse than the ONS data that will come out a few weeks later for the same period. Because the daily figure is still filling in deaths it missed in the past, and also has to spike upwards to make up for the artificial lows of the weekend figures. But do note that the most recent ONS data shown here by the green line is subject to further revision as more recent deaths for that period are registered and the data collated. Shouldnt make much difference though but I have to point it out anyway. Also note that these particular ONS/NRS/NISRA figures are deaths by actual date of death, not date of registration. Also note that the 'official daily UK figures as announced every day' figures I used have probably been revised once or twice by the government and the parameters of what deaths they cover changed, so they wont necessarily match exactly what was announced on a particular day, especially earlier on.


Also the Guardian article goes on about the peak all-cause daily death figure for England & Wales being the highest since records began in 2000, but as established here and elsewhere some time ago now, its actually possible to get daily death figures back to the start of 1970. And the peak daily death rate in this pandemic exceeded all but one of those days, Jan 2nd 1970 when the country was dealing with the H3N2 flu pandemic.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I am interested in the idea that densely populated places like London might be more prone to a rapid outbreak but also more able to contain it because once lockdown starts, it's quite easy for people to stay ultra local in terms of shopping etc (they walk to the corner shop a few hundred metres away where most of the other customers are also very local, rather than driving 10 miles to a big supermarket with loads of people from a wide area). The graph might support that but I don't know if anything else does, or if anyone has looked at this idea seriously, or if this is just speculation.

Maybe but your premise may not be quite right. There will be more people living in those few hundred metres than over much longer distances in a rural area. You'd need to look at the average households served per shop.

Another possible factor is that the outbreak in London was so severe that a level of community resistance came into play in slowing the spread.

 

[elbows]

There also needs to be a frank discussion about the failures of the NHS, not something anyone wanted to talk about as the workers on the ground were being turned into heroes. Clearly the necessary precondition for those failures was the chronic underfunding over decades, but it is also necessary to dig down into the detail to work out how and why bad decisions were taken or inadequate procedures were followed.

I think there is a duty to do that honestly and openly, both to stop it happening again and out of respect for the people who were killed by those failures.

It will happen but it will be massively politicised and there will be great concern about its finding being used to serve whatever agenda the government of that moment are seeking.

What is already clear is that Public Health England is going to take at least its fair share of the heat, and this may be the first battleground for the stuff I just mentioned, especially given that some Tories and their agendas are salivating over the prospect of dismantling PHE.

Personally although some lessons will require further exploration I think a lot of the failings are already somewhat obvious. I'd get rid of Public Health England too. Its what to replace it with that matters, and frankly I would not stop at an investigation into the health services, the absurdities and governance disgraces in this country go so much deeper than even the crap management culture, political agendas of the moment, etc. Our ability to carry out sincere reform with the right priorities is also rather questionable based on past performance, so I'm not particularly looking forward to the way this stuff will be tackled. Hopefully there will be a lot of pressure applied to the right places and we will get something other than the usual 'lessons learnt and lines drawn' crap.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's an odd spectacle currently. Every time I see Hancock, I think ok maybe he's reached breaking point today, maybe he's about to break out into honesty cos he can't live with himself any more. Of course it's not going to happen, I know. He's still dishonestly hailing a weekend death figure as a triumph, ffs. Makes it hard to imagine how a real reckoning can happen.

 

[two sheds]

There also needs to be a frank discussion about the failures of the NHS, not something anyone wanted to talk about as the workers on the ground were being turned into heroes.

Presumably NHS management, which I think needs to be stressed.

 

[teuchter]

Maybe but your premise may not be quite right. There will be more people living in those few hundred metres than over much longer distances in a rural area. You'd need to look at the average households served per shop.

That is right but I think there might be more households per shop. In a rural area, once you're driving to the shop then you're likely to go 10 miles to a big one with more choice instead of 8 miles to a smaller one.

Whereas if you live somewhere built around walking and public transport the decision process will be different.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Presumably NHS management, which I think needs to be stressed.

Yes, although really what I'm talking about is an institutional failure. That will no doubt mean pointing fingers at management and organisational shortcomings, in ways elbows has suggested, but the end result was that the our system didn't do very well. That is pretty clear.

 

[frogwoman]

It does seem to me that these announcements come quick on the heels of some significant PR disaster (this time the track & trace app clusterfuck). But then, there also seems to be a daily PR disaster, so it might just me my mind making up patterns out of absolute chaos.

By the way if I were telling the story covered by that Guardian article, I might be tempted to point out that the nature of the daily UK numbers they read out daily compared to the ONS (+ NRS for Scotland + NISRA for Northern Ireland), we are actually at the point where on some days the daily UK figure actually makes things look worse than the ONS data that will come out a few weeks later for the same period. Because the daily figure is still filling in deaths it missed in the past, and also has to spike upwards to make up for the artificial lows of the weekend figures. But do note that the most recent ONS data shown here by the green line is subject to further revision as more recent deaths for that period are registered and the data collated. Shouldnt make much difference though but I have to point it out anyway. Also note that these particular ONS/NRS/NISRA figures are deaths by actual date of death, not date of registration. Also note that the 'official daily UK figures as announced every day' figures I used have probably been revised once or twice by the government and the parameters of what deaths they cover changed, so they wont necessarily match exactly what was announced on a particular day, especially earlier on.

View attachment 218446
Also the Guardian article goes on about the peak all-cause daily death figure for England & Wales being the highest since records began in 2000, but as established here and elsewhere some time ago now, its actually possible to get daily death figures back to the start of 1970. And the peak daily death rate in this pandemic exceeded all but one of those days, Jan 2nd 1970 when the country was dealing with the H3N2 flu pandemic.

.
Where did you find these figures? (from 1970)?

 

[LDC]

Yes, although really what I'm talking about is an institutional failure. That will no doubt mean pointing fingers at management and organisational shortcomings, in ways elbows has suggested, but the end result was that the our system didn't do very well. That is pretty clear.

Elaborate on this please. Maybe it needs a separate thread if there's lots to say.

 

[Supine]

Yes, although really what I'm talking about is an institutional failure. That will no doubt mean pointing fingers at management and organisational shortcomings, in ways elbows has suggested, but the end result was that the our system didn't do very well. That is pretty clear.

How do you judge it didn’t do well?

Are you saying they failed on capacity, treatment regimes, infection prevention? Which of these things were in the control of the nhs and which were things that they relied on others to provide like ppe.

A pandemic of a totally new disease would be a massive stretch on any healthcare system so be clear when you put the boot in.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How do you judge it didn’t do well?

The care home debacle for one. It's clear that came post-lockdown as a result of cross-infection from hospitals, and there was a policy for some weeks of moving people from hospitals into care homes untested. John Ashton has been pointing out the idiocy and irresponsibility of that action for months now.

But I'm going to leave this for now. I don't know what other failures there were. How would I? But various international comparisons show that the UK's health system did not do well. We don't do anybody any favours by pretending otherwise.

 

[elbows]

The bare minimum I would expect to find would be that yes the NHS were failed by various 'partners' and the long-standing nature of how everything was setup and what pandemic planning decisions were made in the past. The NHS England reverse triage policy is unforgivable unless the care part of the system and the testing part of the system is actually fit for such things. In terms of failures within the NHS, based on anecdotal reports from some people who work in hospitals, I dont think it will be hard to find several layers of management who were only useful when their own inability to grasp the situation caused them to get out of the way and leave the important decisions to people on the ground who had a clue and the right priorities. And another associated failure, the internal NHS version of what I've been complaining about in regards data and secrecy and mealy-mouthed shit.

 

[two sheds]

I dont think it will be hard to find several layers of management who were only useful when their own inability to grasp the situation caused them to get out of the way and leave the important decisions to people on the ground who had a clue and the right priorities.

I'm not sure I've ever heard of management doing that before

this might set a precedent

 

[Orang Utan]

I seem to have acquired a feature called COVID-19 Exposure Logging on the privacy settings on my phone. Is this just to prepare the phone for downloading the tracking app or is something dodgy going on?

 

[elbows]

.
Where did you find these figures? (from 1970)?

A very large spreadsheet available here:

Daily death occurrences, England, regions of England and Wales: 1970 to 2014 - Office for National Statistics

Does not include Scotland or Northern Ireland.

 

[elbows]

I seem to have acquired a feature called COVID-19 Exposure Logging on the privacy settings on my phone. Is this just to prepare the phone for downloading the tracking the app or is something dodgy going on?

Both Apple and Google added stuff at the operating system level for this pandemic so its probably that, although I havent checked my facts.

 

[elbows]

I'm not sure I've ever heard of management doing that before

this might set a precedent

I'm sure they didnt do it enough in this pandemic either, but I think when it came to specific managers at specific moments, the extra distance that teleconferencing provided gave further opportunities to leave the inept on the margins, spouting their ineffective shit while workers nodded, ignored it and got on with the job.

 

[two sheds]

I'm sure they didnt do it enough in this pandemic either, but I think when it came to specific managers at specific moments, the extra distance that teleconferencing provided gave further opportunities to leave the inept on the margins, spouting their ineffective shit while workers nodded, ignored it and got on with the job.

I'm sure they spent all their time with the essential tasks of target setting, analyzing timesheets, developing motivational posters and the like.

 

[Supine]

So this is about imagined inadequacies in management rather than actual facts...

 

[two sheds]

well one aspect of the whole shitshow, you'd imagine