The virus. PPE. Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
A recent Chris Braynt tweet reads : "The Foreign Office Parliamentary Under Secretary has just told a Commons Committee that it was a UK government ministerial decision NOT to take part in mass EU procurement of PPE." .
 
myotis said:
You do realise that the NPCC guidance isn't "Government" guidance, its advice from the Police to the Police (using CPS guidance, a body independent of Government), with examples, to help police officers exercise their discretionary powers to decide what is, and isn't. a "reasonable excuse" under the law.

It's not Government guidance/advice on what we should be doing to avoid spreading the virus, and only really useful if you want to avoid being arrested :)
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to the NSPCC guidance, I was referring to the Government guidance and the Regulations. The government advice being on how to minimise spreading the virus, and the regulations being the law based on those guidelines.
 
Peter10d said:
According to a report on Sky News, scientists have discovered 33 strains of the virus with the most deadly strain being found in Europe. If true this might explain the horrendous death tolls in Spain, Italy, France and the UK.
Click to expand...
There seems to be one of these claims about new and deadlier strains of the virus every week or so, and the media jump on them, peer-reviewed or not! For the other molecular biology geeks, here's the paper:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20060160v1

First, they didn't discover '33 strains'. They found 33 mutations in viruses isolated from 11 patients (some had more than one mutation, relative to the early isolate used as a reference). Mutations are common, and are expected to accumulate over time in all viruses, especially RNA viruses, but most of them won't make the virus any more dangerous and won't be sufficient to categorise an individual virus isolate as a separate strain. Many other mutations have been documented by other researchers during the pandemic. This paper at least has some experimental work, but reviewers (this version isn't peer-reviewed) ought to give it a hard time. The researchers took crude isolates of the viruses (centrifuged and filtered) straight from patients and chucked them on some monkey cells in a dish. There doesn't seem to have been any attempt to equalise the dose of each virus at the start of the experiment. Some isolates produced more viral RNA, and killed more cells, than others over a couple of days. From this they attempt to draw broad conclusions about how the mutations in each virus supposedly affect its pathogenicity. All 11 patients, incidentally, recovered.
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
Just cleaned my car today and like you, the last time my car was cleaned was in Oct when it went for its MOT and service, and the garage courtesy cleaned it for me :D
Click to expand...

Well, at least this little diversion has brought a ray of light into the thread. Shame on you too,Steve :D.

One day our neighbour was on his driveway and was laughing and shaking his head as I was cleaning some dirt off the front of my wife's car that I'd just missed whilst she was reversing off the drive onto the road. :) I also mow 'our' 1m wide grass verge and those of our neighbours who's electric mower cables won't reach..well, that's what the tell me. We have a petrol mower. People further along the road others see that and they do theirs which is great. The council (sub-contracted now of course) will leave it until it's a couple of cm's long these days. Looked scruffy. Not anymore. Needless to say, there's no litter ..well, it doesn't stay long on the footpath/road or on the opposite verge which is 10m wide to a brook. I can't abide litter.
 
mex said:
A recent Chris Braynt tweet reads : "The Foreign Office Parliamentary Under Secretary has just told a Commons Committee that it was a UK government ministerial decision NOT to take part in mass EU procurement of PPE." .
Click to expand...
As lack of PPE is a global problem, not just in Europe or the UK, does it really matter if you ask for a share of a mass EU procurement, when you can just as easily try to buy from the same or other suppliers/countries yourself?
 
"The UK’s failure to participate in the EU’s procurement scheme for medical kit and ventilators was a “political decision”, according to the most senior civil servant at the Foreign Office.

Downing Street had originally blamed a “communication problem” in March for the failure to sign up to the emergency scheme to help procure vital medical kit to fight the coronavirus pandemic.

Appearing at the foreign affairs select committee, however, Sir Simon McDonald, the permanent under secretary at the Foreign Office, said ministers had been briefed by the UK’s mission to the EU.

Questioned by the Labour MP Chris Bryant during the session on why the UK was not involved the scheme, Sir Simon replied: “We left the European Union on 31 January.”

Pressed again, Sir Simon added it was a “political decision” and the UK mission to the EU in Brussels “briefed ministers about what was available, what was on offer and the decision is known”."



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ors-boris-johnson-brexit-latest-a9476811.html
 
nilagin said:
I wasn't referring to the NSPCC guidance, I was referring to the Government guidance and the Regulations. The government advice being on how to minimise spreading the virus, and the regulations being the law based on those guidelines.
Click to expand...
Ok, I misunderstood what you were referring to when you wrote "whilst the guidelines and regulations refer to it as "reasonable excuse" I am only aware of the NPCC guidance using the term (and the Regulations of course)

What Government guidelines use the term "reasonable excuse"?
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
We have two very dirty cars. Not cleaning them is the latest form of one upmanship as in "we're more isolationist than thee"... :naughty: :coat:
Click to expand...


Lol..I'm sure it was your good-self that asked 'Staff' if there could be an additional button for..'Don't like'. rather than having to respond with the 'quote' button or ignore the post. I couldn't click the 'like' button as one dirty car is an anathema to me and as for two.. pass me the paracetamol..:D
 
myotis said:
Ok, I misunderstood what you were referring to when you wrote "whilst the guidelines and regulations refer to it as "reasonable excuse" I am only aware of the NPCC guidance using the term (and the Regulations of course)

What Government guidelines use the term "reasonable excuse"?
Click to expand...
The Government guidelines I saw the other day now no longer reads as reasonable excuse, it has now changed to the limited phrase.

In my search I did find a link to the NHS recommendations on exercises.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/exercise/
One suggestion is Couch to 5km for people not used to exercise, for regular runners they should be able to achieve 5km in 15 to 20 minutes, for someone not used to running will obviously take longer, the expected walking time would be 45-90 minutes
So a 9 mile run per day or 5 mile walk per day, both taking an hour, would more than suffice to remaining healthy.
 
sphexx said:
John, like you I am fanatical about cleaning my car and clean it very regularly — once a year before the MOT :). This extension to the MOT is going to mean it will miss it’s annual clean :).
Click to expand...

jakeblu said:
Just cleaned my car today and like you, the last time my car was cleaned was in Oct when it went for its MOT and service, and the garage courtesy cleaned it for me :D
Click to expand...
Cleaning the car should really be done more often, if not once a week, at least once a month, at the same time you should be checking oil, coolant and washer fluid levels, check tyres for tread depth, or uneven wear, as well as the pressures, and sidewalks for damage, check operation of lights if you don't have automatic notification of bulb failures.
 
Retune said:
There seems to be one of these claims about new and deadlier strains of the virus every week or so, and the media jump on them, peer-reviewed or not! For the other molecular biology geeks, here's the paper:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20060160v1

First, they didn't discover '33 strains'. They found 33 mutations in viruses isolated from 11 patients (some had more than one mutation, relative to the early isolate used as a reference). Mutations are common, and are expected to accumulate over time in all viruses, especially RNA viruses, but most of them won't make the virus any more dangerous and won't be sufficient to categorise an individual virus isolate as a separate strain. Many other mutations have been documented by other researchers during the pandemic. This paper at least has some experimental work, but reviewers (this version isn't peer-reviewed) ought to give it a hard time. The researchers took crude isolates of the viruses (centrifuged and filtered) straight from patients and chucked them on some monkey cells in a dish. There doesn't seem to have been any attempt to equalise the dose of each virus at the start of the experiment. Some isolates produced more viral RNA, and killed more cells, than others over a couple of days. From this they attempt to draw broad conclusions about how the mutations in each virus supposedly affect its pathogenicity. All 11 patients, incidentally, recovered.
Click to expand...

Does this also mean there is not much chance of the virus mutating into a weaker strain?
 
JohnC6 said:
They might not, Simon. You're saying that the WHO are against it, however,I've read that they may change this advice and advise the wearing of them, generally. Then there are professionals like the two featured in the link..ie the doctor and the scientist who are against it too and no doubt many more professionals. I wouldn't say that it's a given. However, against that is the fact that more and more European countries are adopting that practice ordered by their respective governments..the latest being Germany to consider it. I see that Italy go with the WHO recommendation that only those with COVID-19 wear them(shouldn't they be remaining at home ? )or those caring for those with it along with those deemed vulnerable with 'underlying health conditions' which covers a large spectrum as I know you'll be aware of. I suppose HMG could issue a dictum to wear them because they won't want to be accused of failing to take all precautions if numbers of cases/deaths carry on longer than countries who did have regulations re the wearing of masks.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...sk-may-be-our-best-weapon-to-stop-coronavirus

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/31/calls-grow-for-germany-wide-use-of-face-masks-covid-19

I haven't been out to shops or anywhere like that. My wife will sometimes go to our local M&S mini store at a garage for odds and sods but we get online delivery or click & collect which we're beginning to appreciate so we'll probably stay with it when all this is done .We just take a walk locally for 45 mins or so and I would be reluctant to wear a mask just to do that.

Here's what's going on in Spain https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-...w-in-spain-during-coronavirus-state-of-alarm/
Click to expand...

Well the fact that the experts are split on this leads me to believe we should not change. It does however look like one of those token gestures to look like they are doing something rather than benefit at all.
 
Peter10d said:
Does this also mean there is not much chance of the virus mutating into a weaker strain?
Click to expand...
Sometimes this happens in the long term, but there doesn't seem to be any particular reason why lower virulence would be selected for at the moment. The virus has hit on a successful formula and is spreading very rapidly.
 
Retune said:
Sometimes this happens in the long term, but there doesn't seem to be any particular reason why lower virulence would be selected for at the moment. The virus has hit on a successful formula and is spreading very rapidly.
Click to expand...

And to add to this, it's likely that IF strains of lower virulence are generated, they'll most likely disappear because the more virulent strain will spread further, faster. The virus isn't a single entity that can change its mood or skill-set.
 
JohnC6 said:
They might not, Simon. You're saying that the WHO are against it, however,I've read that they may change this advice and advise the wearing of them, generally. Then there are professionals like the two featured in the link..ie the doctor and the scientist who are against it too and no doubt many more professionals. I wouldn't say that it's a given. However, against that is the fact that more and more European countries are adopting that practice ordered by their respective governments..the latest being Germany to consider it. I see that Italy go with the WHO recommendation that only those with COVID-19 wear them(shouldn't they be remaining at home ? )or those caring for those with it along with those deemed vulnerable with 'underlying health conditions' which covers a large spectrum as I know you'll be aware of. I suppose HMG could issue a dictum to wear them because they won't want to be accused of failing to take all precautions if numbers of cases/deaths carry on longer than countries who did have regulations re the wearing of masks.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...sk-may-be-our-best-weapon-to-stop-coronavirus

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/31/calls-grow-for-germany-wide-use-of-face-masks-covid-19

I haven't been out to shops or anywhere like that. My wife will sometimes go to our local M&S mini store at a garage for odds and sods but we get online delivery or click & collect which we're beginning to appreciate so we'll probably stay with it when all this is done .We just take a walk locally for 45 mins or so and I would be reluctant to wear a mask just to do that.

Here's what's going on in Spain https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-...w-in-spain-during-coronavirus-state-of-alarm/
Click to expand...
I’ve no strong feelings about masks for infection though I can’t see they are any more dangerous than coughing into your elbow etc and if droplets from elsewhere land on your mask they would have landed on you otherwise. They may possibly trap droplets when worn by an infected person.
 
ancient_mariner said:
And to add to this, it's likely that IF strains of lower virulence are generated, they'll most likely disappear because the more virulent strain will spread further, faster. The virus isn't a single entity that can change its mood or skill-set.
Click to expand...
Not in a position to disagree with you, but can you explain why a more virulent virus spreads further and faster. I would have thought that a more virulent virus was more likely to kill its host and be less likely to spread, than one that results in its host staying alive and travelling around to make contact with new hosts.

I appreciate it's more complicated than this.
 
JohnC6 said:
Well, at least this little diversion has brought a ray of light into the thread. Shame on you too,Steve :D.

One day our neighbour was on his driveway and was laughing and shaking his head as I was cleaning some dirt off the front of my wife's car that I'd just missed whilst she was reversing off the drive onto the road. :) I also mow 'our' 1m wide grass verge and those of our neighbours who's electric mower cables won't reach..well, that's what the tell me. We have a petrol mower. People further along the road others see that and they do theirs which is great. The council (sub-contracted now of course) will leave it until it's a couple of cm's long these days. Looked scruffy. Not anymore. Needless to say, there's no litter ..well, it doesn't stay long on the footpath/road or on the opposite verge which is 10m wide to a brook. I can't abide litter.
Click to expand...
I used to ‘ban’ the Council (actually cowboy contractors who have no idea about plant growth) from mowing my verge and a much wider one opposite, both shaded by trees,. My side struggles to grow grass at all but has snowdrops and daffs which I‘ve planted and they don’t need ‘scalping’,. The other side has a good selection of wild violets at this time of year which is exactly when the ‘Council’ comes and scalps it.
 
myotis said:
Not in a position to disagree with you, but can you explain why a more virulent virus spreads further and faster. I would have thought that a more virulent virus was more likely to kill its host and be less likely to spread, than one that results in its host staying alive and travelling around to make contact with new hosts.

I appreciate it's more complicated than this.
Click to expand...
I was about to ask the same question except to say that a less virulent form but one which caused more “harmless” coughing or sneezing (common cold?) would spread very well.
 
myotis said:
Not in a position to disagree with you, but can you explain why a more virulent virus spreads further and faster. I would have thought that a more virulent virus was more likely to kill its host and be less likely to spread, than one that results in its host staying alive and travelling around to make contact with new hosts.

I appreciate it's more complicated than this.
Click to expand...

From wikipedia "In the context of gene for gene systems, often in plants, virulence refers to a pathogen's ability to infect a resistant host. "

So greater virulence is about greater ability to infect. The term virulence seems to be ambiguous and can also be used to mean 'do more harm' but the origins of the word relate to infectiousness.
 
ancient_mariner said:
From wikipedia "In the context of gene for gene systems, often in plants, virulence refers to a pathogen's ability to infect a resistant host. "

So greater virulence is about greater ability to infect. The term virulence seems to be ambiguous and can also be used to mean 'do more harm' but the origins of the word relate to infectiousness.
Click to expand...
Yes, obviously we have 2 meanings here and the word presumably relates to virile so Wikipedia seems correct though I would definitely think the common usage is more like ‘harmful’ :).

Edit. & most dictionary sources go the ‘deadly’ route. As so often, at least in English, the same word can have several meanings, like “quick” in ”the quick & the dead”, it wasn’t until I moved to Yorkshire that I heard people using the older form (though they say “wick) meanly alive or lively.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
From wikipedia "In the context of gene for gene systems, often in plants, virulence refers to a pathogen's ability to infect a resistant host. "

So greater virulence is about greater ability to infect. The term virulence seems to be ambiguous and can also be used to mean 'do more harm' but the origins of the word relate to infectiousness.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I did search for virulence, just to confirm I understood what it meant and found an article in Science that confirmed what I thought, ie level of harm. I didn't look any further :-(
 
sphexx said:
I used to ‘ban’ the Council (actually cowboy contractors who have no idea about plant growth) from mowing my verge and a much wider one opposite, both shaded by trees,. My side struggles to grow grass at all but has snowdrops and daffs which I‘ve planted and they don’t need ‘scalping’,. The other side has a good selection of wild violets at this time of year which is exactly when the ‘Council’ comes and scalps it.
Click to expand...

Nothing like that here. No trees..nothing on the 1m our side just a gap for each drive and opposite just have a few clumps of daffs way off to the left. Along the brook opposite are very tall trees and smaller ones dotted here and there along the whole length of the very wide verge that's why no-one can build there which is great.The company who has the contract is Amey. which is nationwide,I think. They do the refuse, too. That's good of you to plant those snowdrops..lovely idea.(y)
 
sphexx said:
Yes, obviously we have 2 meanings here and the word presumably relates to virile so Wikipedia seems correct though I would definitely think the common usage is more like ‘harmful’ :).

Edit. & most dictionary sources go the ‘deadly’ route. As so often, at least in English, the same word can have several meanings, like “quick” in ”the quick & the dead”, it wasn’t until I moved to Yorkshire that I heard people using the older form (though they say “wick) meanly alive or lively.
Click to expand...

myotis said:
Thanks, I did search for virulence, just to confirm I understood what it meant and found an article in Science that confirmed what I thought, ie level of harm. I didn't look any further :-(
Click to expand...

FWIW I've always understood it to be infectiousness, but that may just be luck on my part.
 
We’re all doomed, doomed I tell you :j . So Johnson as recovering and his first act is to call Trump and agree “a coordinated international response to coronavirus,” including through the G7, which is currently chaired by the U.S.”
So now we seem to be doomed to follow Trump’s daft ideas.

Also “they also committed to signing a free-trade agreement between the two countries “as soon as possible.”” which, though a meaningless statement because of “as soon as possible”, AFAIK trade agreements in the US need ratifying by Congress which Trump does not control and likely won’t even if re-elected.
https://www.politico.eu/article/bor...d&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication
 
KitsuneAndy said:
NHS nightingale is already turning patients away, because despite of the number of beds they have, they don't have enough nurses...
Click to expand...

Not really a surprise unfortunately :mad:
 
Just listening to Trump on TV, he sounds like he has a cold ...
 
Donnie said:
Not really a surprise unfortunately :mad:
Click to expand...
KitsuneAndy said:
NHS nightingale is already turning patients away, because despite of the number of beds they have, they don't have enough nurses...
Click to expand...
Possibly proving correct the retire public health guy (cant remember his name) who said it was a mistake to nominate the Nightingales for CV, that existing hospitals should have been turned over to CV and the Nightingale’s treat less seriously ill.
 
hunnymonster said:
The biggest issue is that whilst we can build the hospital in 9 days, equipping and staffing it poses more of a problem (NHS England alone had something of the order of 100K nurse vacancies before this kicked off - new sites mean more nurses when they're already short)
Click to expand...
KitsuneAndy said:
NHS nightingale is already turning patients away, because despite of the number of beds they have, they don't have enough nurses...
Click to expand...
Donnie said:
Not really a surprise unfortunately :mad:
Click to expand...
Not in the slightest.
 
nilagin said:
Can I just remind you that we are discussing reasonable excuses. Training for the Olympics is not a necessity so not reasonable.
The idea of allowing people to exercise outside the confines of there home is to remain healthy and maintain / improve the immune system. One hours exercise a day will do that. More is unnecessary. With the right exercises it is possible to maintain or improve health in 30 to 45 minutes per day. More than an hour per day is unnecessary and pointless.
The idea of a lockdown is to minimise the amount of time spent outside unless you have a reasonable excuse, not having a reasonable excuse and then spending as much time as you like doing it.
Click to expand...

if you want to go for a 4 hr walk as part of your exercise in the open air and never meet or bump into someone what’s the problem?
 
Dave1 said:
I'm using it to try and show @nilagin that there are other opinions out there other than his own, and that his opinion isnt necessarily the one the law agrees with (just as at times the NPCC opinion doesn't always align with the law). ;)

The problem is that nilagin is like the proverbial pigeon in a chess game...
Click to expand...

Would be easier herding cats whilst participating In a platting fog competition.
 
I'm finding the whole situation rather ironic.
Hear so many complaints about the lack of time at home and pressures of work.
Now many have a more leisurely life they want to be going out all day long.
 
Last edited:
Studio488commercial said:
if you want to go for a 4 hr walk as part of your exercise in the open air and never meet or bump into someone what’s the problem?
Click to expand...

I think the point he is trying to make is that you may be more likely to need hospital treatment if you go out for longer than an hour as you may trip or fall. Not sure he has evidence to back this up, or offset the fact that most accidents happen in the home!
 
tijuana taxi said:
I'm finding the whole situation rather ironic.
Hear so many complaints about the lack of time at home and pressures of work.
Now many have a more leisurely life they want to be going out all day long.
Click to expand...

Because I wanted time at home when the wife was at work!!!
 
Studio488commercial said:
if you want to go for a 4 hr walk as part of your exercise in the open air and never meet or bump into someone what’s the problem?
Click to expand...
cambsno said:
I think the point he is trying to make is that you may be more likely to need hospital treatment if you go out for longer than an hour as you may trip or fall. Not sure he has evidence to back this up, or offset the fact that most accidents happen in the home!
Click to expand...

The problem is not with me, or you, going out for a four hour walk but if millions of others do the same, the risk will increase exponentially. After all, if I can do it why can't everyone else?
 
Last edited:
Some time ago Downing Street told us that the UK had not taken up the EU plan to bulk buy medical equipment because officials had not seen the emails.

Then it emerged that UK officials were present at meetings where this plan was discussed.

And now we have this -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52377087


Are we to believe

(a) UK officials attended meetings where the plan was discussed but did not brief ministers on their return. While officials go to many meetings and then take forward what happens without ministerial involvement, at some time and especially as the particular plan would have a high cost and as it was about the most high profile issue we have at present it is beyond belief that minsters would not be briefed, and

(b) the most senior civil servant in the Foreign Office who now says

"Due to a misunderstanding, I inadvertently and wrongly told the committee that ministers were briefed on the joint EU procurement scheme and took a political decision not to take part in it,"
"That is incorrect. Ministers were not briefed by our mission in Brussels about the scheme and a political decision was not taken on whether or not to participate."
He added that "the facts of the situation are as previously set out" and the UK missed the opportunity to take part "owing to an initial communication problem".

Has Sir Simon McDonald (Foreign Office, Perm Sec) now been told to 'take one for the team' to save political embarrassment?

Dave
 
I’ll bet the language in that letter is very slippery. Eg “Ministers were not briefed by our mission in Brussels “
Were they briefed by anyone else?
He mentions “scheme” in the first paragraph and “schemes“ in the third.
The third paragraph looks like it has been rewritten by a number of separate people as the language and structure is clumsy.
Lots more to go with this story I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top