The virus. PPE. Part 1

[sphexx]

Excellent programme. I challenge anyone who still imagines we've done a relatively good job in the UK to watch this (now available on demand at that link).

Thanks, yes excellent programme.

 

[RWDW]

Excellent programme. I challenge anyone who still imagines we've done a relatively good job in the UK to watch this (now available on demand at that link).

No, I don't think they have done a relatively good job; I think they are extremely good. It depends where you take your news from though:

Channel 4:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/channel-4-news-uk/

The Guardian:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

The independent:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-independent/

The BBC:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

 

[Retune]

No, I don't think they have done a relatively good job; I think they are extremely good. It depends where you take your news from though:

Channel 4:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/channel-4-news-uk/

The Guardian:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

The independent:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-independent/

The BBC:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

I challenge anyone who still imagines we've done an extremely good job in the UK to watch this (now available on demand at that link).

 

[RWDW]

I challenge anyone who still imagines we've done an extremely good job in the UK to watch this (now available on demand at that link).

We won't change each others minds no matter what we say on here - only end up falling out so i will leave it at that on the Channel 4 doc.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

We won't change each others minds no matter what we say on here - only end up falling out so i will leave it at that on the Channel 4 doc.

So you think the UK Government have done a good job?
I'd hate to see what a s*** job would look like....

 

[cambsno]

I challenge anyone who still imagines we've done an extremely good job in the UK to watch this (now available on demand at that link).

I think they have done an excellent job in terms of protecting the economy as best they can. I do thing though they were appalling in terms of not fixing the issues highlighted in pandemic planning as well as not doing more sooner (in terms of restrictions and PPE). They have done a good job on ensuring the nhs didn’t collapse like Italy and that aside from pasta and loo roll in the first week or 2, we have had a great supply in shops (not sure how much can be put towards the government?). They are doing a terrible job in protecting those at greater risk and for me the really bad thing is not accepting mistakes that have been made. It’s all very well to look at say Germany and say they got it right, instead we acted like France, Italy or Spain and made many of the same mistakes the did. I appreciate that we have a way to go but be honest, come out and say we got got this and that terribly wrong. We thought this was the best thing to do and we got it wrong.

No one minds people making genuine mistakes but they can’t stand the bury head in sand mentality or refusal to accept we could have done better. Come out and say that we have now been in contact with Germany and learnt a b and c, and while it can’t fix the past, it will mean we do x y and z now and this should give us x result.

 

[RWDW]

So you think the UK Government have done a good job?
I'd hate to see what a s*** job would look like....

We all have our own opinions and it really isn't worth falling out over.

This is probably the most recent info I could find on who is doing well and who isn't in the public's opinion:

https://reutersinstitute.politics.o...formation-views-uk-government-response-highly

 

[sphexx]

No, I don't think they have done a relatively good job; I think they are extremely good. It depends where you take your news from though:

Channel 4:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/channel-4-news-uk/

The Guardian:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

The independent:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-independent/

The BBC:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

I note Your source says BBC was founded by John Reith which is clearly inaccurate and amateurish so I looked them up in Wikipedia:
“The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[3] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."

I also note that it’s evidence for left-wing bias is reports on the climate change crisis which is bonkers.

But then, as you indicate, you are a person who is incapable of changing his opinions, maybe I’m wasting my time replying

 

[sphexx]

I think they have done an excellent job in terms of protecting the economy as best they can. .

I don’t see how you can say that. If they had acted earlier (and better) that would have protected the economy better surely? As seen in S Korea (and even China really). Lack of any strategic planning.

(Agree with rest of what you wrote)

 

[jakeblu]

No, I don't think they have done a relatively good job; I think they are extremely good. It depends where you take your news from though:

Channel 4:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/channel-4-news-uk/

The Guardian:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

The independent:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-independent/

The BBC:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

I’m assuming you’ve provided those links to show those news sources have a left of centre bias and not because it shows they have a high level of factual reporting

 

[cambsno]

I don’t see how you can say that. If they had acted earlier (and better) that would have protected the economy better surely? As seen in S Korea (and even China really). Lack of any strategic planning.

(Agree with rest of what you wrote)

I meant in terms of reacting to the crisis with furlough etc.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

I meant in terms of reacting to the crisis with furlough etc.

That's possibly the only commendable thing they've done.

 

[Peter10d]

Coronavirus: New 100% accurate COVID-19 antibody test approved for use in UK http://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...antibody-test-approved-for-use-in-uk-11987924

At last there seems to be a reliable antibody test. Hopefully this can be rolled out to the public soon and we can learn how many people have actually had the virus and now have some immunity.

 

[Retune]

We won't change each others minds no matter what we say on here - only end up falling out so i will leave it at that on the Channel 4 doc.

I wasn't suggesting that you change your mind, only that you watch the programme.

 

[Retune]

We should give credit where it's due. For example, the Nightingale field hospitals have been criticised (in retrospect) as white elephants. Personally, I thought they were a perfectly sensible response to an uncertain situation, put together in an impressively short time. Nobody wanted to see the scenes of terribly ill patients lying in corridors reported elsewhere. Far better to overprepare than to underprepare (as we sadly did in other areas).

 

[jakeblu]

Coronavirus: New 100% accurate COVID-19 antibody test approved for use in UK http://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...antibody-test-approved-for-use-in-uk-11987924

At last there seems to be a reliable antibody test. Hopefully this can be rolled out to the public soon and we can learn how many people have actually had the virus and now have some immunity.

I wonder if they replicate the Stanford study now it will show a different result? I think it's highly likely.

 

[mex]

We should give credit where it's due. For example, the Nightingale field hospitals have been criticised (in retrospect) as white elephants. Personally, I thought they were a perfectly sensible response to an uncertain situation, put together in an impressively short time. Nobody wanted to see the scenes of terribly ill patients lying in corridors reported elsewhere. Far better to overprepare than to underprepare (as we sadly did in other areas).

The field hospitals may yet have to be used sadly.

 

[sphexx]

We should give credit where it's due. For example, the Nightingale field hospitals have been criticised (in retrospect) as white elephants. Personally, I thought they were a perfectly sensible response to an uncertain situation, put together in an impressively short time. Nobody wanted to see the scenes of terribly ill patients lying in corridors reported elsewhere. Far better to overprepare than to underprepare (as we sadly did in other areas).

And a useful, if expensive, exercise which may prove useful experience for the coming other pandemics.

 

[nilagin]

So you think the UK Government have done a good job?
I'd hate to see what a s*** job would look like....

You wouldn't be able to, we'd all be dead.

 

[Uncle Fester]

And a useful, if expensive, exercise which may prove useful experience for the coming other pandemics.

If I recall correctly, didn't Johnson call the pandemic a 'once in a century event' in parliament yesterday?

I hope he meant that in terms of how widespread and severe the current pandemic is, and not the likelihood of a different pandemic occurring.

Apart from the experience we have gained at huge cost and the Nightingale hospitals (which I presume are meant to be temporary), I cannot see that we are now any better prepared for the outbreak of a different lethal virus than we were at the beginning of the year.

 

[tarric]

No, I don't think they have done a relatively good job; I think they are extremely good. It depends where you take your news from though:

Channel 4:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/channel-4-news-uk/

The Guardian:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

The independent:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-independent/

The BBC:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

Mediabiasfactcheck is run and owned by an armchair researcher on media bias and is based in North Carolina USA who's methods have been described as in no way scientific. Now I'm not saying that the US is to the right of the UK politically but my brother in-law who has voted conservative as long as I have known him and would if on here be defending Boris at least as vigorously as his staunchest supporter and who I would generously describe as being a bit to the right is described by most of his US friends as a bit of a liberal lefty. So maybe we need to start factchecking our factcheckers.

 

[Retune]

I wonder if they replicate the Stanford study now it will show a different result? I think it's highly likely.

Thread below on specificity of antibody test used in California studies (other problems with methods and stats have also been raised). In comparison, the data sheet on the Roche test claims 99.80% specificity (95 % CI: 99.58 – 99.92 %) in the largest group of samples tested (3420 routine diagnostic) which looks much better for this sort of study.

View: https://BANNED/trvrb/status/1251332447691628545

 

[Retune]

Mediabiasfactcheck is run and owned by an armchair researcher on media bias and is based in North Carolina USA who's methods have been described as in no way scientific. Now I'm not saying that the US is to the right of the UK politically but my brother in-law who has voted conservative as long as I have known him and would if on here be defending Boris at least as vigorously as his staunchest supporter and who I would generously describe as being a bit to the right is described by most of his US friends as a bit of a liberal lefty. So maybe we need to start factchecking our factcheckers.

 

[woof woof]

One thing about the Americans I've met is that they can be the loveliest most friendly and caring people you'd ever meet but if the conversation goes to another area I've at times been just... astonished.

 

[woof woof]

If I recall correctly, didn't Johnson call the pandemic a 'once in a century event' in parliament yesterday?

I hope he meant that in terms of how widespread and severe the current pandemic is, and not the likelihood of a different pandemic occurring.

Apart from the experience we have gained at huge cost and the Nightingale hospitals (which I presume are meant to be temporary), I cannot see that we are now any better prepared for the outbreak of a different lethal virus than we were at the beginning of the year.

You have to hope that people learn from this.

I'd love to see new hospitals built with lots of unused capacity and I'd love to see manufacturing and testing capacity built up in the UK. I'd love the UK to be a true centre of excellence and an example and a help when need be to the world.

 

[sphexx]

One thing about the Americans I've met is that they can be the loveliest most friendly and caring people you'd ever meet but if the conversation goes to another area I've at times been just... astonished.

My guess is you would find the same with, say, the Taliban. I wonder what the common factor is .

(Or even among some English, Welsh, Scots, Irish (N &S), Indians, Pakistanis & so on.)

 

[sphexx]

You have to hope that people learn from this.

I'd love to see new hospitals built with lots of unused capacity and I'd love to see manufacturing and testing capacity built up in the UK. I'd love the UK to be a true centre of excellence and an example and a help when need be to the world.

Unfortunately it’s not going to happen, it was always going to be difficult after losing our reputation for good sense and now we’ve lost our reputation for efficiency . Once might be unlucky, twice ... .

 

[woof woof]

My guess is you would find the same with, say, the Taliban. I wonder what the common factor is .

(Or even among some English, Welsh, Scots, Irish (N &S), Indians, Pakistanis & so on.)

I very nearly married a Muslim.

She is a complete babe and a wonderful person in every way but if the wrong news items comes on the TV or radio her attitudes could appear shocking to some. I think it helps to try and understand how people get where they are. Don't judge until you've walked a mile.... etc. I can see how some extreme views are arrived at but... and I'm sorry to say this... I haven't been able to fully understand where some Americans are coming from yet other than of course handed down through the generations and peer pressure but I don't see what there is in American history that's the starting point.

 

[woof woof]

Unfortunately it’s not going to happen, it was always going to be difficult after losing our reputation for good sense and now we’ve lost our reputation for efficiency . Once might be unlucky, twice ... .

Well, the Nightingales seemed to be done efficiently and Boris seems to appreciate his life being saved and there's the rhetoric about leveling up etc. We can hope.

 

[sphexx]

I very nearly married a Muslim.

Oops I’ve had a lot of Muslim friends in the past, luckily no women I think, but I agree.

But then I did marry a Fiorentina and the Tuscans have a saying “moglie e buoi di Paese tuoi“ (wife and oxen of your own country) and although it was not entirely true in our case there was always that bit of grit ... .

She is a complete babe and a wonderful person in every way but if the wrong news items comes on the TV or radio her attitudes could appear shocking to some. I think it helps to try and understand how people get where they are. Don't judge until you've walked a mile.... etc. I can see how some extreme views are arrived at but... and I'm sorry to say this... I haven't been able to fully understand where some Americans are coming from yet other than of course handed down through the generations and peer pressure but I don't see what there is in American history that's the starting point.

I wonder if you could travel back to Victorian Britain at the height of Empire if you wouldn’t find similar attitudes?

 

[woof woof]

Oops I’ve had a lot of Muslim friends in the past, luckily no women I think, but I agree.

But then I did marry a Fiorentina and the Tuscans have a saying “moglie e buoi di Paese tuoi“ (wife and oxen of your own country) and although it was not entirely true in our case there was always that bit of grit ... .


I wonder if you could travel back to Victorian Britain at the height of Empire if you wouldn’t find similar attitudes?

I expect so.

 

[Retune]

I wonder if you could travel back to Victorian Britain at the height of Empire if you wouldn’t find similar attitudes?

You can still find some 'interesting' attitudes in people who only remember the tail end of the Empire in the 20th century...

 

[Uncle Fester]

Looking at the 'Five Tests' the government have chosen to see if lock down can be eased, they seem rather vague to me:



I was just looking at the 'Seven Metrics' to be used in New York State, to determine if restrictions can be eased. They seem a lot more specific to me:



https://www.pix11.com/news/coronavi...metrics-before-reopening-in-phases-cuomo-says

It seems to me that some of the UK criteria is open to interpretation. What exactly is 'sufficient critical and specialist treatment'? What specifically are 'manageable levels'?

Is it me, or has the government given itself some wiggle room? Or are the UK governments 'five tests' a simplified summary of a more detailed document that I/we haven't yet seen?

 

[woof woof]

You could nit pick both approaches for example the Americans don't mention ppe.

If at all possible I'd prefer an approach that isn't triggered by a sequence of statistical events as I'm sure we could come up with a scenario in which it wouldn't work well at least for some areas of the country so if forced to choose I'd probably go for the UK government one.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

You can still find some 'interesting' attitudes in people who only remember the tail end of the Empire in the 20th century...

Xenophobia is more common than some people might care to admit. The incidence in a place fades as generations grow up together but it never entirely fades away. If truth be told, I have xenophobic tendencies that I have to keep under control. When we recognise it as a common disease, we can deal with it.

 

[Uncle Fester]

You could nit pick both approaches for example the Americans don't mention ppe.

If at all possible I'd prefer an approach that isn't triggered by a sequence of statistical events as I'm sure we could come up with a scenario in which it wouldn't work well at least for some areas of the country so if forced to choose I'd probably go for the UK government one.

I'm not arguing that the New York State (sadly I don't think all states in the USA are governed as effectively, so I won't use the word 'American') is a model of perfection. As you rightly say, there is no mention of PPE.

It just seems to me that the UK's five tests are vague and lacking in detail. Whether that's a strength or weakness, I don't know.

 

[woof woof]

Xenophobia is more common than some people might care to admit. The incidence in a place fades as generations grow up together but it never entirely fades away. If truth be told, I have xenophobic tendencies that I have to keep under control. When we recognise it as a common disease, we can deal with it.

I don't think we do too bad in the UK at least compared to some other places. At least we're usually not still fighting battles that took place 600 years ago. Most people here (in my experience) don't seem to care that much if at all. Or maybe I've just been lucky. There are places in the world where racism and xenophobia aren't just not hidden but open if not actually the national sport. I mentioned Almaty and Chonburi somewhere today, both places (IMO) where racism and xenophobia are pretty much endemic.

 

[woof woof]

I'm not arguing that the New York State (sadly I don't think all states in the USA are governed as effectively, so I won't use the word 'American') is a model of perfection. As you rightly say, there is no mention of PPE.

It just seems to me that the UK's five tests are vague and lacking in detail. Whether that's a strength or weakness, I don't know.

I suppose both approaches have both plus and minus points going for them but I'm wary of systems that rely on stats triggering something. I think I prefer human input and decisions. Of course it all falls down if you have no confidence in the humans involved and would prefer the computers deciding for us.

 

[sphexx]

Xenophobia is more common than some people might care to admit. The incidence in a place fades as generations grow up together but it never entirely fades away. If truth be told, I have xenophobic tendencies that I have to keep under control. When we recognise it as a common disease, we can deal with it.

I’ve always considered xenophobia/racism to be a ‘natural’ and universal feature of human societies (and maybe some other mammals too ). It’s undesirable and counterproductive in modern mostly urban societies but sadly unless people take that on board it’ll never be managed/eliminated,

 

[Uncle Fester]

I suppose both approaches have both plus and minus points going for them but I'm wary of systems that rely on stats triggering something. I think I prefer human input and decisions. Of course it all falls down if you have no confidence in the humans involved and would prefer the computers deciding for us.

I agree that both methods have pro's and cons, but I don't think it's as simple as saying whether we want humans or computers deciding for us.

Number one, say's 'we must be confident', number 4 & 5 use the phrase 'Be confident'.

Who exactly is the 'we' and who exactly is 'being confident' - the politicians or the scientists?

If it was made clear that it is the scientists who make the decision whether the criteria are being met or not, I for one, would have greater confidence in the five tests.

Much less so, if it is down to the interpretation of politicians, especially given the vagueness of the criteria.