Cable Forum - Coronavirus

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Coronavirus (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33709417)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36096462)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...efore-pandemic

We did this analysis on a potential MERS outbreak but didn't think it was relevant. Ooer....

Here we go again.........:rolleyes:
Before 2020, an independent report judged the UK as being the 2nd best country in the world for being prepared for a pandemic.
Another independent report identified that the UK had a large store of supplies ready for a pandemic.
Which country had enough PPE?
Government funded research was being done using the MERS virus to develop a vaccine for it, to test the methodology for something similar coming along. That is how Oxford University managed to get a vaccine so quickly. They were effectively working on it before COVID 19 actually appeared.
Government funding was also being used to make the UK more self-sufficient on vaccine production.
Of course all those things don't get reported by the media as it doesn't suit the agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36096542)

Here we go again.........:rolleyes:
Before 2020, an independent report judged the UK as being the 2nd best country in the world for being prepared for a pandemic.

Yes indeed - here we go again.

I assume you mean the Global Health Security Index which ranked the United States the number 1 ranked to respond. Without knowing their full methodology it's impossible to know if their analysis was inadequate or the political leadership in both countries.

Quote:

Another independent report identified that the UK had a large store of supplies ready for a pandemic.
Which country had enough PPE?
Government funded research was being done using the MERS virus to develop a vaccine for it, to test the methodology for something similar coming along. That is how Oxford University managed to get a vaccine so quickly. They were effectively working on it before COVID 19 actually appeared.
Government funding was also being used to make the UK more self-sufficient on vaccine production.
Of course all those things don't get reported by the media as it doesn't suit the agenda.

I don't dispute that Government funding was a huge part of vaccine provision - contrary to BoJo's claims it's a huge demonstration of what states can achieve that the private sector cannot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36096542)

As you say, here we go again…

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b6d14c3363e8d2

Quote:

The planning

In those subsections that looked at planning for a pandemic, the UK scored highly – successive governments for years have compiled, maintained. and updated national plans on how to cope specifically with influenza pandemics.

Academics, think tanks and health bodies all did what was required of them and contributed to plans that were in place in case the worst happened.

In 2011 the Department of Health published the “influenza pandemic preparedness strategy”, and it was updated regularly and remained the go-to document when coronavirus struck.

The GHS Index highlighted this in its third subsection, titled “rapid response to and mitigation of the spread of an epidemic”.

Explaining what they examined, Priya Bapat of the EIU told HuffPost UK: “So, do you have these emergency plans in place and do they cover lots of different types of diseases?

“Do they incorporate planning for vulnerable populations? We looked at exercising response plans, so – you have these plans on paper but, in the last year, have you actually tested them out in a scenario planning exercise?

“Do they have a plan on how to communicate with the public?”

When it came to the UK, the answers were “yes, yes, yes and yes” and it scored 91.9 out of 100, more than 10 points ahead of any other country.

The implementation

But the UK didn’t score quite so well on subsection six, which looked at how well a country can actually implement the plans it has.

“Six looks at aspects that aren’t traditionally looked at like the strength of the government and social economic risks and infrastructure,” said Bapat.

“And if you look at the UK, some of the areas where it scored lower have been the story of this outbreak. One aspect in particular – when you look at high income European countries, the UK has the lowest doctors per capita than any of those countries except for Poland...

… The leadership

The UK had the plans, so why didn’t they work?

“Even though the US and the UK had the best environments in terms of plans in place and thinking about what they would need in terms of capacity,” said Bapat, “when it came to the moment that everyone had been preparing for, the decision-making really hampered the actual ability of the country to respond.”

Documenting the UK government’s delayed response to the pandemic is an ongoing process but there are already a number of things the public inquiry that Boris Johnson has committed to might want to examine.

The nationwide lockdown was by some accounts too late and “cost a lot of lives”; face masks in shops are only being made mandatory on July 24 after months of dithering; contact tracing has been discussed endlessly but is still not up and running; and quarantine rules have changed like the seasons.

tl:dr - great planning, crappy leadership & implementation of the plans.

Lions lead by donkeys.

Plans are brilliant things, but usually only work up to the point where you try to implement them ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36096545)

<SNIP>

I don't dispute that Government funding was a huge part of vaccine provision - contrary to BoJo's claims it's a huge demonstration of what states can achieve that the private sector cannot.

... presumably before Boris could screw things up - yet take the credit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36096552)

Plans are brilliant things, but usually only work up to the point where you try to implement them ;)

I beg to differ - but then I would, having spent half my working life as a Project & Programme Manager.

Plans work when they are based on realistic assumptions, agreed timescales, resources, & deliverables, with the support of senior sponsors to drive the plan forward, and the buy-in of those impacted by the plans.

Don’t have those things, delivery is sub-optimal…

It’s all very well to criticise, but you were not having to make the decisions.

The nature of Covid was not fully understood at the beginning and the scientists were giving conflicting advice on how to deal with it. First it was the herd immunity plan and then suddenly we were into full scale lockdown mode.

The mask problem was worldwide, and every country had difficulty and delay in acquiring enough for their populations. We were well stocked apparently, but there were logistical problems with distribution. Again, the scientists were telling us that masks were ineffective in the early days.

Foreign travel policy was constantly changing, but opening up our borders had to be in line with the situation on the ground in other countries. We could have had a blanket ban on foreign travel, like Australia, but their policy has been nothing short of a disaster, causing great resentment in the country.

A legitimate criticism was about Track & Trace (although that is working better now), but the rate at which everything was moving was so fast, we were always going to be caught on the back foot.

In the end, of course, Boris came through, and his foresight in putting money into the vaccine programme was second to none and it transformed our ability to get back on our feet.

I keep comparing this to how Mr Hindsight would have fared if he was in charge, and believe me, it wouldn’t have been a laughing matter!

OB in springing to the Conservatives defence shocker.

At least you admit they ignored every pandemic preparedness plan ever written in history and acknowledge the plan for mass infection, and hoping for the best. Also known as the “herd immunity” plan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36096617)

In fairness to them this was what the likes of CW were also saying at the time. Let's not forget that Boris, Hancock etc are politicians and don't have an in-depth medical knowledge and are relying on what their advisers are saying.

Or indeed, that a pandemic plan for something like flu or even SARS/MERS (which were no less dangerous in severe cases, but were less contagious as a result of more cases being severe than with covid-19) wouldn't necessarily fit every virus which could cause a pandemic.

I think the general idea was that if they shielded CEVs, then allowed the rest of the country to mainly get on with it, they would get the virus, and enough would have had it and mainly survived to then allow the CEVs out after a while knowing they wouldn't then get the virus or would do so at a rate which the NHS could then have had chance to 1. prepare for 2. cope with. It maybe would have worked, but, let's not forget also no-one really knew a lot about the virus back then, and they'd ignored the fact that 1. non-CEV people could still get severely ill and need hospital treatment 2. that there would be far too many getting it in a few weeks of letting it do this to keep the NHS from getting like Italy 3. that in any case, shielding wasn't going to be sufficient.

It's actually good government that they did see that the original plan wasn't going to work, in the face of actual on the ground evidence in the UK, and that of the changing knowledge of the virus, and change their plans, which they have not been afraid to do throughout.

Finally, the notable critics of the "herd immunity" approach ignore the fact that it's what we've been actually working to achieve for the last 10 months. By putting vaccines in people's arms, you're achieving precisely that. Once vaccinated you have immunity same as if you've been infected (but precisely how specific and how long lasting it will be in either case isn't really known yet).

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36096617)

The Conservatives, my party, got two things right:

1. Leaving the EU, saddled as they were with May's Withdrawal Agreement;

2. COVID vaccinations after the floundering jfman has described.

They are now getting a number of things wrong, but the elephant in the room is the debt accrued during lockdown. I'm sure the Guvmin knows stuff that we can only glean from leaks or very wise economists - stuff future about interest rates and balancing debt paydown (over as long a period as possible, like 50 years) with levelling the economy around the country.

I believe that capital borrowing makes sense but they don't have seem to havea plan for building new industry in the North.

They also have no idea how to deal with power demands. Bloweth not the wind, shineth not the sun and where's the nuclear/gas/coal to supplement the void?

Boris spouts on about the climate with absolutely no control over China/India and no policy for making washing machines in the UK.

As for Labour, they'd be even worse as they squabble about increasing wages whilst reducing productivity.

We're doomed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by nffc (Post 36096624)

In fairness to them this was what the likes of CW were also saying at the time.

The fact they say it only means it’s agreed Government policy. Politicians are conveniently hiding behind scientists when it suits them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36096626)

The Conservatives, my party, got two things right:

1. Leaving the EU, saddled as they were with May's Withdrawal Agreement;

2. COVID vaccinations after the floundering jfman has described.

To quote your goodself: 50 % correct so better than most. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36096626)

Boris is spot on though when he said the other day that the financial hit of lockdowns, furlough etc etc from the covid response has to be paid back, and that Thatcher would have done the same - for the faults she did have, Maggie was spot on about how to turn the economy around. We can't keep generating debt and it has to be clawed back somehow.

I also think he's fundamentally right about the labour issues - having got by on cheap labour the firms need to wise up and pay a fair wage, though understandably this will increase their costs and that this will probably be passed onto the consumer, though this should have happened anyway as we shouldn't ethically have been paying labourers from abroad a pittance to do it anyway, although this could still have happened with freedom of movement, so isn't specifically a Brexit issue.

As for energy. Well, it's clear we can't rely on reliable supply from wind or solar, and we don't have anywhere to use HEP really, if we're deciding not to use coal, and Mad Vlad is being a pain over gas, there's really only one option. One just needs to ignore the hippies who harp on about Fukushima (natural disaster which we aren't exposed to) or Chernobyl (Dyatlov being a dick) and understand that it's incredibly safe to run, the isotopes are easily cleanly disposed of (the half life is high, and they aren't high gamma emitters, so can easily be buried in a concrete box) and that it generates large amounts of reliable energy, it's an absolute no brainer in my view...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36096630)

The fact they say it only means it’s agreed Government policy. Politicians are conveniently hiding behind scientists when it suits them.

This was happening both ways, remember "following the science"? Though I do remember Harries, van Tam and Whitty all going on about how face coverings were more harm than good, then all of a sudden, when the government wanted to do it, then "the science has changed". Well, I doubt it had. And I'm still doubtful that they do have that much of an effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36096617)

OB in springing to the Conservatives defence shocker.

jfman attacks the Conservatives shocker ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36096656)

jfman attacks the Conservatives shocker ;)

Quite.

Ideologically I bleed Tory but I don't see how they should be exempt from justifiable criticism just because.

Look at the good things people do, and help improve the not so good.