Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[road2ruin]

I don't know why Whitty and Vallance etc don't grow a backbone and actually come out with what their feelings are. I appreciate it probably won't go down well with those pushing against it but if they have their professional feelings on the subject just come out and say it.

As if by magic they’re on with Boris at 7pm. Will be interesting to hear what they say.

 

[Ethan]

I don't know why Whitty and Vallance etc don't grow a backbone and actually come out with what their feelings are. I appreciate it probably won't go down well with those pushing against it but if they have their professional feelings on the subject just come out and say it.

I don't think it is a matter of growing a backbone. Chris Whitty treated plenty of Covid patients on the front-line. He has plenty of courage.

But he also knows that when working in Govt (and this non-party political), you can either go along to a large degree with policy but seek to influence it at the margins and get some stuff changed or adapted, or you can go in hard and get alienated and ignored entirely and have no influence. It seems clear he has chosen the former.

 

[road2ruin]

I don't think it is a matter of growing a backbone. Chris Whitty treated plenty of Covid patients on the front-line. He has plenty of courage.

But he also knows that when working in Govt (and this non-party political), you can either go along to a large degree with policy but seek to influence it at the margins and get some stuff changed or adapted, or you can go in hard and get alienated and ignored entirely and have no influence. It seems clear he has chosen the former.

Possibly poorly worded, I have no doubts about his level of courage on a practical level. It just strikes me that he's pretty much being cut out of the decision making now as they've stopped saying that 'we are following the science' so I don't see how much he has to lose by coming out and saying what he thinks. I doubt he has much influence now and has been well and truly side-lined.

 

[Swango1980]

Possibly poorly worded, I have no doubts about his level of courage on a practical level. It just strikes me that he's pretty much being cut out of the decision making now as they've stopped saying that 'we are following the science' so I don't see how much he has to lose by coming out and saying what he thinks. I doubt he has much influence now and has been well and truly side-lined.

Do you know what he thinks? Just asking, as your post almost implies that Whitty thinks lifting restrictions is a crazy decision. I guess we'll see tonight, but if he tends to back the decision, will you assume that he is lying to us and he actually thinks very differently?

In my opinion, I fully expect any medical expert to be on the cautious side of the scale anyway. However, if Whitty and his colleagues felt that lifting restrictions would be a disaster for the UK, I honestly don't think those restrictions would be lifted.

 

[Ethan]

Do you know what he thinks? Just asking, as your post almost implies that Whitty thinks lifting restrictions is a crazy decision. I guess we'll see tonight, but if he tends to back the decision, will you assume that he is lying to us and he actually thinks very differently?

In my opinion, I fully expect any medical expert to be on the cautious side of the scale anyway. However, if Whitty and his colleagues felt that lifting restrictions would be a disaster for the UK, I honestly don't think those restrictions would be lifted.

The public health principles of managing a health crisis emphasise prudence and caution. Taking risks that can be avoided is not part of the game. Assuming you don't know all that is happening, and that the stuff you don't know about is mostly bad, is simply part of his culture and training.

At the start of this pandemic, Whitty made a speech in which he said that when this was all over, one of two things would happen. He would be blamed for not acting strongly enough to prevent deaths and illness, or he would be blamed for over-reacting when there were very few deaths and illnesses. He said that he knew which one he preferred. He also pointed out, as I have done previously here too, that the task of preventing bad outcomes is very difficult to judge. You really can't titrate actions with any finesse against an unknown and unknowable threat, so the risk of being accused of over-reacting is often wrongly made by those who have no idea about how close they came to bad things happening.

 

[road2ruin]

Do you know what he thinks? Just asking, as your post almost implies that Whitty thinks lifting restrictions is a crazy decision. I guess we'll see tonight, but if he tends to back the decision, will you assume that he is lying to us and he actually thinks very differently?

In my opinion, I fully expect any medical expert to be on the cautious side of the scale anyway. However, if Whitty and his colleagues felt that lifting restrictions would be a disaster for the UK, I honestly don't think those restrictions would be lifted.

I have no idea what he thinks, I suspect he probably doesn't agree with the speed things have moved it. I was just pointing out that they've been conspicuous by their absence over the last few months and I know from the comments of many online that they are keen to hear what they think.

 

[Swango1980]

The public health principles of managing a health crisis emphasise prudence and caution. Tasking risks that can be avoided is not part of the game. Assuming you don't know all that is happening, and that the stuff you don't know about is mostly bad, is simply part of his culture and training.

At the start of this pandemic, Whitty made a speech in which he said that when this was all over, one of two things would happen. He would be blamed for not acting strongly enough to prevent deaths and illness, or he would be blamed for over-reacting when there were very few deaths and illnesses. He said that he knew which one he preferred. He also pointed out, as I have done previously here too, that the task of preventing bad outcomes is very difficult to judge. You really can't titrate actions with any finesse against an unknown and unknowable threat, so the risk of being accused of over-reacting is often wrongly made by those who have no idea about how close they came to bad things happening.

I'm sure many think that "free" testing should still be available (as an example). However, I understand £2 billion per month is spent on testing. It is clearly not free, and it seems a pretty big bill we are paying. So, if that is scrapped, maybe the reason it is scrapped will be because we do not think it is providing a big enough benefit to the UK. It might be argued the vulnerable would still like this to be in place, however it might be decided some of this £2 billion a month would be better spent in other parts of health care - that will benefit the vulnerable much more?

The same could be said about lifting other restrictions, that it will free up money / resources for the benefit of the nations health and economy?

I too will be interested in what the experts have to say tonight at any rate. I suspect that they will say they are comfortable with the state lifting restrictions, but we should continue to act responsibly. I'd imagine that would be the official line at any point restrictions would be lifted.

 

[Tashyboy]

I have no idea what he thinks, I suspect he probably doesn't agree with the speed things have moved it. I was just pointing out that they've been conspicuous by their absence over the last few months and I know from the comments of many online that they are keen to hear what they think.

put me in this category, but I have a feeling he has been “ advised” to keep his opinions to Himself and his cakehole well and truly shut.

 

[Swango1980]

put me in this category, but I have a feeling he has been “ advised” to keep his opinions to Himself and his cakehole well and truly shut.

Of course, if that is what people feel, then there is really no point in hearing what he has to say?

I think some are only going to agree with him if he says something to back up their own opinion. If he doesn't, they'll either focus completely on any caveats that all scientists will give, or just say he has been told to keep his opinion to himself.

If that is the case, might as well not have him on tonight at all.

 

[road2ruin]

Of course, if that is what people feel, then there is really no point in hearing what he has to say?

I think some are only going to agree with him if he says something to back up their own opinion. If he doesn't, they'll either focus completely on any caveats that all scientists will give, or just say he has been told to keep his opinion to himself.

If that is the case, might as well not have him on tonight at all.

I'm not sure if I agree. The assumption is at the moment that the decisions being made are being driven by a desire to please backbenchers, to get the economy going and to (possibly) get other stories off the front pages. I think if someone like Whitty comes on and says that they agree with the decisions made then those who are doubting the reasons behind them will have more faith that they're being made for the right reasons. If he comes out and says he doesn't agree then those were were wary of the reasons will feel vindicated and those who weren't would just claim that he's far too wary and we need to get back to reality so neither side would change their opinion if that makes sense. Essentially I think a lot of people would put more value on his opinion on what is going on than those who are going to be doing the speaking.

Anyway, he's on at 7pm so it will be interesting to see what he says and what the body language of him and Vallance is.

 

[Tashyboy]

Of course, if that is what people feel, then there is really no point in hearing what he has to say?

I think some are only going to agree with him if he says something to back up their own opinion. If he doesn't, they'll either focus completely on any caveats that all scientists will give, or just say he has been told to keep his opinion to himself.

If that is the case, might as well not have him on tonight at all.

Totally agree. I think there had been camps on both sides that have been happy to quote comments that agree with there own opinion rather than have an open mind.

 

[Ethan]

I'm sure many think that "free" testing should still be available (as an example). However, I understand £2 billion per month is spent on testing. It is clearly not free, and it seems a pretty big bill we are paying. So, if that is scrapped, maybe the reason it is scrapped will be because we do not think it is providing a big enough benefit to the UK. It might be argued the vulnerable would still like this to be in place, however it might be decided some of this £2 billion a month would be better spent in other parts of health care - that will benefit the vulnerable much more?

The same could be said about lifting other restrictions, that it will free up money / resources for the benefit of the nations health and economy?

I too will be interested in what the experts have to say tonight at any rate. I suspect that they will say they are comfortable with the state lifting restrictions, but we should continue to act responsibly. I'd imagine that would be the official line at any point restrictions would be lifted.

£2bn? That amount of money gets lost every day down the side of the sofas of leading cronies.

A massive amount of money has indeed been wasted on a disastrous testing and tracing strategy. I see no attempt to rein any of that back in, nor to recover money that has been didddlid out of the public purse. Testing and tracing could and should have done much more cheaply and effectively within the NHS and PHE. Testing 'for cause', i.e with symptoms, should continue. Routine testing for schools and workplaces should end, though.

I am trained in, and have worked in UK public health, and I guarantee you that whatever he says tonight, Chris Whitty and all the other PH docs would wish to see people continue to be tested for symptoms, possibly close contacts too, and isolate if positive. I doubt he believes adherence to that would be very good based on advice rather than mandate. He won't say anything he doesn't agree with, so look for nuanced differences.

 

[Swango1980]

£2bn? That amount of money gets lost every day down the side of the sofas of leading cronies.

A massive amount of money has indeed been wasted on a disastrous testing and tracing strategy. I see no attempt to rein any of that back in, nor to recover money that has been didddlid out of the public purse. Testing and tracing could and should have done much more cheaply and effectively within the NHS and PHE. Testing 'for cause', i.e with symptoms, should continue. Routine testing for schools and workplaces should end, though.

I am trained in, and have worked in UK public health, and I guarantee you that whatever he says tonight, Chris Whitty and all the other PH docs would wish to see people continue to be tested for symptoms, possibly close contacts too, and isolate if positive. I doubt he believes adherence to that would be very good based on advice rather than mandate. He won't say anything he doesn't agree with, so look for nuanced differences.

There may be a lot of wasted money, but if it is felt £2 billion is better spent elsewhere then surely you need to take that into account. That is £24 billion a year, about half of the NHS wage bill and about a quarter of the NHS budget. So, I don't think you can dismiss this as an insignificant amount of money.

 

[Ethan]

There may be a lot of wasted money, but if it is felt £2 billion is better spent elsewhere then surely you need to take that into account. That is £24 billion a year, about half of the NHS wage bill and about a quarter of the NHS budget. So, I don't think you can dismiss this as an insignificant amount of money.

My point is that claiming to be careful with money now after a lengthy period of spunking it away like it was going out of fashion with hardly any regard for value or quality is rather rich, especially when most experts agree that focussed testing is still pretty important, and we will lose control over what remains of surveillance if we don't keep it up.

 

[DanFST]

Fourth Jab for the Over 75's.

 

[Swango1980]

My point is that claiming to be careful with money now after a lengthy period of spunking it away like it was going out of fashion with hardly any regard for value or quality is rather rich, especially when most experts agree that focussed testing is still pretty important, and we will lose control over what remains of surveillance if we don't keep it up.

I'd rather they were able to control their spending better though, than continuing to throw it away just because that has what has happened up to now. In fact, I'd like to think there'd be better control in getting value out of our taxes now that there is more time to make decisions, and the panic has subsided.

Apparently most experts agree a big scale back in testing is warranted, the question is how much so. I think testing within hospitals are still expected to continue, but we'll all be a little wiser tonight.

 

[bobmac]

Apparently most experts agree a big scale back in testing is warranted, the question is how much so. I think testing within hospitals are still expected to continue, but we'll all be a little wiser tonight.

Only if you watch it, I won't.
The ONLY thing I'm interested in is how Covid is affecting the area where I live which today is showing
Cases DOWN 32.4%
Deaths 0
Patients admitted in United Lincolnshire Hospitals DOWN 13%
R value 0.7-0.9
I appreciate others aren't as fortunate as I am.

 

[Ethan]

I'd rather they were able to control their spending better though, than continuing to throw it away just because that has what has happened up to now. In fact, I'd like to think there'd be better control in getting value out of our taxes now that there is more time to make decisions, and the panic has subsided.

Apparently most experts agree a big scale back in testing is warranted, the question is how much so. I think testing within hospitals are still expected to continue, but we'll all be a little wiser tonight.

As I said, test 'for cause', i.e. for symptoms. Self isolate if positive, not if not. If they want to cut costs, make it LFTs, but they have to be provided free or people won't do them.

The cost savings made now will be a drop in the ocean compared to the cost if another variant gets its feet well under the table before we realise. It might be a very false economy.

If the Govt is keen to cut costs, they should go after money wasted on contracts for kit that was never delivered, overpriced or not up to quality.

 

[drdel]

As I said, test 'for cause', i.e. for symptoms. Self isolate if positive, not if not. If they want to cut costs, make it LFTs, but they have to be provided free or people won't do them.

The cost savings made now will be a drop in the ocean compared to the cost if another variant gets its feet well under the table before we realise. It might be a very false economy.

If the Govt is keen to cut costs, they should go after money wasted on contracts for kit that was never delivered, overpriced or not up to quality.

With respect I think your last few posts are politically based.

 

[D-S]

Is testing free in other nations? I seem to recall Hobbit saying that it was a couple of Euros a time in Spain, but I may have remembered it wrongly. Has charging (if that is what other nations do, especially at higher infection times) compromised their response?