Has Boris and the government done a good job of handling the pandemic?

[thejuggler]

If they were a football team we would be bottom of the Sunday pub team league.

We were lied to again last night with BS that we were testing both apps, but it appears the other app testing was so secret absolutely nobody knew about it.

 

[nlogax]

The grand tradition of misplaced British exceptionalism from the government has led to this. Lockdown was at least a fortnight too late in starting (usual 'wait and see what happens in the rest of Europe' dithering), airport arrival quarantining should have been there in the beginning, the track and trace app indecision has been laughable and there's been zero consistency in the approach to lockdown and then easing of restrictions. To top it all off, the claim that the UK's approach has been 'world beating'.. when I heard that I pretty much cringed myself inside out.

Two things that should be commended.

• Resources funnelled to the NHS to deal with this, though that wasn't exactly plain sailing. What actually went on with testing is hard to fathom.
• The furlough scheme. I have to admire the financial commitment that went into preventing massive job losses. This could all be wasted if further easing of restrictions doesn't happen soon.

An inquiry needs to get cracking once we're in a more stable time so we can understand what actually went well, went poorly and how we can learn from this in the event of a future pandemic. Not that governments appear to be great responding to situations sensibly using lessons from the past.

 

[Yew]

It could well be - our stats are "died with a positive test", which with increasing testing is going to catch a lot of people whose death was in fact nothing to do with coronavirus, but who happened to have an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic case in conjunction with whatever killed them. Or alternatively, the complex workings of coronavirus on the blood may be causing things like heart attacks and strokes in people vulnerable to them, but other countries are just calling them heart attacks and strokes? (My last remaining great aunt, in her 90s, sadly died of a stroke in April, this was not put down as a COVID death but it could have been if she had it and it made clotting a tiny bit more likely, as indeed it does - she wasn't tested, though, as this was during the period when hardly anyone was being tested).

Indeed, I seem to remember some comments on another tread that Germany records covid-related pneumonia deaths as pneumonia, rather than C-19.

 

[Scrotnig]

Ok, I misworded that. In the UK, a greater proportion of people who test positive subsequently die than do in most other countries.

Where is the data to back this up?

 

[Bantamzen]

It could well be - our stats are "died with a positive test", which with increasing testing is going to catch a lot of people whose death was in fact nothing to do with coronavirus, but who happened to have an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic case in conjunction with whatever killed them. Or alternatively, the complex workings of coronavirus on the blood may be causing things like heart attacks and strokes in people vulnerable to them, but other countries are just calling them heart attacks and strokes? (My last remaining great aunt, in her 90s, sadly died of a stroke in April, this was not put down as a COVID death but it could have been if she had it and it made clotting a tiny bit more likely, as indeed it does - she wasn't tested, though, as this was during the period when hardly anyone was being tested).

The answer is right there in your response, "died with a positive test". Now if I were writing the queries to extract data from the NHS' systems, and was asked to gather all cases with covid recorded, as above, they would include those cases where covid was not the cause of death but was recorded as showing as positive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The answer is right there in your response,
"died with a positive test". Now if I were writing the queries to extract data from the NHS' systems, and was asked to gather all cases with covid recorded, as above, they would include those cases where covid was not the cause of death but was recorded as showing as positive.

Yes, that's the exact point I was making - our death statistics will include people who didn't die of COVID, but happened to have it when they did.

I don't think it's quite wide enough to capture someone who crashed their car on the way home from a positive test, but it might well include things like cancer patients for whom the coronavirus itself wasn't relevant (but the reduction in cancer treatment from coronavirus may have been).

 

[ashkeba]

Indeed, I seem to remember some comments on another tread that Germany records covid-related pneumonia deaths as pneumonia, rather than C-19.

That's Barny Castle!

I can post things on threads but it does not make them true (but I try to check them).

 

[Bletchleyite]

In answer to the original question, I think they did OK to start with (other than that they should probably have done the lockdown on Monday 16th), but are fluffing coming out of lockdown. They need to adopt an approach like New Zealand, stating more concrete definitions for when an "alert level" will be dropped or raised (e.g. the number of daily deaths or cases) and more concrete definitions of what each level means in terms of restrictions, most notably for if we have to go up again in the event of a second wave. Any changes to those definitions need concrete and well-explained definitions, and things like the furlough scheme also need to be fixed to it.

 

[ashkeba]

Ok, I misworded that. In the UK, a greater proportion of people who test positive subsequently die than do in most other countries.

We will all subsequently die!

The UK does not test without strong suspicion, which will make the tested-then-died-soon % higher than places that test early, test often.

 

[Senex]

An inquiry needs to get cracking once we're in a more stable time so we can understand what actually went well, went poorly and how we can learn from this in the event of a future pandemic. Not that governments appear to be great responding to situations sensibly using lessons from the past.

Is there any chance of a full, open, and honest enquiry taking place during the lifetime of this parliament if any report is likely to be strongly critical of the government? Is it not inevitable (and to be expected from the time it has taken to get round to other major enquiries) that we shall have to wait for a change of government?

To be credible, any enquiry will have to be judge-led and with powers to summon witnesses and examine them under oath, and require all documentation to be produced. Otherwise there will just be a typical civil-service whitewash.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes, that's the exact point I was making - our death statistics will include people who didn't die of COVID, but happened to have it when they did.

I don't think it's quite wide enough to capture someone who crashed their car on the way home from a positive test, but it might well include things like cancer patients for whom the coronavirus itself wasn't relevant (but the reduction in cancer treatment from coronavirus may have been).

I'm not sure about accidents, you'd hope they weren't included, but in these cynical times who knows? Part of me wouldn't be surprised. However I do know of at least a couple of people dying from heart diseases that they were terminally ill from but have had covid put on the death certificate and so would be counted. And one of these cases is now being disputed, so I can't imagine these are isolated cases.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure about accidents, you'd hope they weren't included, but in these cynical times who knows? Part of me wouldn't be surprised. However I do know of at least a couple of people dying from heart diseases that they were terminally ill from but have had covid put on the death certificate and so would be counted. And one of these cases is now being disputed, so I can't imagine these are isolated cases.

I think it's if it could have been COVID related it's being considered that it was - things like strokes, heart attacks etc will clearly sit in this grey area given COVID's effect on the circulatory system.

I'm pretty sure someone who tested positive being killed in a car crash on the way home from the test site (which isn't improbable - people don't drive well when they are under stress or ill - one reason why I'd have made greater use of home test kits) wouldn't be included.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Regarding deaths, the overall total deaths per week, compared to the average, is surely the key figure? Whether you attribute it to COVID or not is a sideshow. At some point, if all those deaths were simply brought forward by upto 12 months, then we should drop below average deaths for the time of year as these early deaths work through the system.

To me, the focus seemed to be entirely on avoiding a Lombardy style situation - not the people getting ill / dying, but the popularity poll destroying images of beds in corridors and health staff collapsing through exhaustion. Nightingale Hospitals were the response to that, along with 'clap for the NHS'. Another response would be to leave people in their homes to pass away 'out of sight'. The early MD article in Private Eye alluded to that. Pneumonia - the doctors friend. Many less developed countries ie not having an NHS equivalent, will be doing just that.

The government has wasted time by dithering / changing it's mind, and wasted money by buying unnecesary new toys - think Nightingale, ventilators, PPE not delivered / rejected, track and trace apps. It's not as though they would hire shipping services from a company with no shipping experience (or indeed vessels) and then pay compensation to their competitors for not being allowed a turn at the trough.

 

[nlogax]

Is there any chance of a full, open, and honest enquiry taking place during the lifetime of this parliament if any report is likely to be strongly critical of the government? Is it not inevitable (and to be expected from the time it has taken to get round to other major enquiries) that we shall have to wait for a change of government?

It's hard to say what will happen here. Chilcot started six years after the Iraq war, while the intention to set up an inquiry (not enquiry, my mistake) into Grenfell was announced the very next day after the fire. There have been multiple calls for a public inquiry so far for the government's handling of Covid, all of which have been rejected by Johnson. Seems to me he's already intent on kicking that can far down the road.

And of course there's no real guarantee of a major all-encompassing inquiry happening at all.

 

[takno]

Regarding deaths, the overall total deaths per week, compared to the average, is surely the key figure? Whether you attribute it to COVID or not is a sideshow. At some point, if all those deaths were simply brought forward by upto 12 months, then we should drop below average deaths for the time of year as these early deaths work through the system.

The trouble is that overall deaths will be inflated by the response to COVID as well as the COVID itself. We know that there has been a huge reduction in people reporting cardiac symptoms, which is likely to cause a spike in those deaths. Cancer Research is already suggesting that we could see tens of thousands of excess cancer deaths. It's very likely that if these deaths don't actually overtake direct COVID deaths then they could easily be a third of the excess. It's going to take a lot of painstaking analysis to get any remotely accurate figures for this ever.

 

[edwin_m]

If only Jeremy and Momentum had been at the wheel, all would have been well

Personally I feel David Cameron would have made a decent fist of it, especially if Clegg had still been in tow.

Also it's worth mentioning it's not over yet, who knows what else lies ahead, perhaps we should reserve judgement ?

Unfortunately in 2019 we had the choice between an honest fool, with a sense of duty which while misguided was not missing, and a clever (maybe) schemer in it only for himself.

Any of the governments in my living memory (back to the days of Edward Heath) would have made a better job of this than either of them, allowing for the less developed state of science and technology in earlier decades. A government elected and a cabinet appointed on the basis of supporting the disastrous policy of Brexit is by definition not going to be very competent.

 

[ashkeba]

As for herd immunity, well it is a principle locked in reality. Its what's been happening for millions of years in fact. Locking a population away from themselves in order to kill it will only work if the entire globe did it all at the same time (never going to happen), or if you accept that your borders may have to be shut for many years.

I think the above assumes that no vaccine or effective treatment will be developed.

 

[Mikey C]

If only Jeremy and Momentum had been at the wheel, all would have been well

Personally I feel David Cameron would have made a decent fist of it, especially if Clegg had still been in tow.

Also it's worth mentioning it's not over yet, who knows what else lies ahead, perhaps we should reserve judgement ?

Theresa May would have done a better job than Boris, Jeremy Hunt also. For this sort of crisis you need either a hard working leader with an eye for detail, Thatcher would have been excellent and I imagine Gordon Brown would have been good too.

As someone who'd voted for all 3 main parties but would lean towards the Tories, they've done a terrible job, other than with the Treasury/Chancellor's measures. Lack of preparation earlier this year resulting in the terrible shortages of PPE, flip flopping with the herd immunity/lockdown strategy, the Cummings farce, the lack of an App etc. The death rate combined with the massive debts and contraction of the economy is a grim outcome

The lack of humility is annoying as well, they've treated this as a continuation of the referendum or the 2019 election, instead of being adult about it and admitting that they haven't always got it right. Trying to bluff and bullsh*t that everything they've done has been correct just annoys people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the above assumes that no vaccine or effective treatment will be developed.

If a vaccine isn't possible, neither is herd immunity, because they both use the same principle. In that case, we can either maintain social distancing reasonably indefinitely, or we accept that we've just been thrown back to the 1800s in medical terms and have to accept that life expectancy will, unless the virus mutates to be less dangerous, considerably reduce.

 

[Jozhua]

Ok, I misworded that. In the UK, a greater proportion of people who test positive subsequently die than do in most other countries.

Maybe it is. I like to believe that we have world-class medical facilities and therefore we should be able to assist people who test positive as effectively as anywhere else. But the statistic comes from a pessimistic way means of calculation, then [and bringing this back to the question raised in this topic] clearly the UK government's approach to counting is doing us no favours as it is shedding us in a worse light than other countries.

I think the issue is the number of tests was much smaller than the number of people sick, therefore only the most sick patients would receive a Coronavirus test and this increases Case Fatality Rate. I highly doubt for the actual number of people with Coronavirus, that the outcomes are statistically any worse.

I highly doubt even the 2-3% case fatality rate is real, I think it is likely to be around 0.5%, which is much worse than a flu, but definitely a lot lower than previous quoted figures. The fortunate thing is that the worse mortality is focused around very specific groups, which we should be able to effectively shield, whilst low risk populations develop "herd immunity". Whilst herd immunity has gone a bit out of the window, I reckon we have at least 10-20% of the population with some form of immunity, which should help slow the spread a little bit. The case fatality figure is likely also highly contingent on which groups are worst hit with the virus.

I do want to comment on New Zealand and Australia, because whilst I think that their achievements are impressive, they definitely had a lot of favours. Australia has a population of 25 million (less than half that of the UK), whilst New Zealand has a population of less than 5 million. The UK has a population density of 270.7 per Square KM, whilst New Zealand has 18.3 and Australia 3.3. And I will concede that many will live in Urban Areas and Coastal Regions, but then you also have to consider their distance from other countries and more easily seal-able borders. The UK consistently ships goods through its borders from Western Europe to Ireland, trade routes that cannot practically be stopped and almost certainly has more frequent movement between it and surrounding countries.

I think the lockdown policy in New Zealand has been very successful and almost certainly took a decent amount of decisiveness and fast action to achieve. But we should also understand that New Zealand was playing with a better set of cards for this circumstance and take a dose of realism before copy and pasting tactics for the UK.

I think to a certain extent China probably had an advantage with their lockdown policy too. Most of the country's cases were concentrated in one city, so shutting it down did not require such a heavy amount of disruption to the economy as a whole. China also doesn't have to deal with pesky things like human rights, which I know a lot of those screaming for lockdown were eager to get rid of. I also think China's lockdown and reporting will have almost certainly had an angle of performance to them. The CCP showing their "decisiveness" and ability to contain this dangerous virus (forgetting that their poor control of the food and animal trade lead to this in the first place). I reckon the outbreak probably spread much more than was reported, simply because it took them so long to admit to the issue and respond, at which point testing probably caught a fraction of the cases, near the end of the curve anyway. In fact, if I was to really put my tin foil hat on, I might even say Wuhan's lockdown existed simply to shield residents from the amount of deaths and illness that was likely taking place.

 

[ashkeba]

If a vaccine isn't possible, neither is herd immunity, because they both use the same principle.

Those two are not unbreakably linked. In one direction, we might never make a vaccine that is less deadly than covid itself. In the other, if immunity is short, we might never achieve herd immunity naturally but could with a coordinated vaccine schedule and maybe booster shots.

 

[Ianno87]

Theresa May would have done a better job than Boris, Jeremy Hunt also. For this sort of crisis you need either a hard working leader with an eye for detail, Thatcher would have been excellent and I imagine Gordon Brown would have been good too.

As someone who'd voted for all 3 main parties but would lean towards the Tories, they've done a terrible job, other than with the Treasury/Chancellor's measures. Lack of preparation earlier this year resulting in the terrible shortages of PPE, flip flopping with the herd immunity/lockdown strategy, the Cummings farce, the lack of an App etc. The death rate combined with the massive debts and contraction of the economy is a grim outcome

The lack of humility is annoying as well, they've treated this as a continuation of the referendum or the 2019 election, instead of being adult about it and admitting that they haven't always got it right. Trying to bluff and bullsh*t that everything they've done has been correct just annoys people.

December / January when we should have been building awareness of Covid, we were too distracted by a General Election and that well-known folly called Brexit.

 

[Mikey C]

I do want to comment on New Zealand and Australia, because whilst I think that their achievements are impressive, they definitely had a lot of favours. Australia has a population of 25 million (less than half that of the UK), whilst New Zealand has a population of less than 5 million. The UK has a population density of 270.7 per Square KM, whilst New Zealand has 18.3 and Australia 3.3. And I will concede that many will live in Urban Areas and Coastal Regions, but then you also have to consider their distance from other countries and more easily seal-able borders. The UK consistently ships goods through its borders from Western Europe to Ireland, trade routes that cannot practically be stopped and almost certainly has more frequent movement between it and surrounding countries.

I think the lockdown policy in New Zealand has been very successful and almost certainly took a decent amount of decisiveness and fast action to achieve. But we should also understand that New Zealand was playing with a better set of cards for this circumstance and take a dose of realism before copy and pasting tactics for the UK.

New Zealand's cities are very low density as well, hence Auckland sprawling over a massive area for a population of 1m.

 

[BJames]

Those two are not unbreakably linked. In one direction, we might never make a vaccine that is less deadly than covid itself. In the other, if immunity is short, we might never achieve herd immunity naturally but could with a coordinated vaccine schedule and maybe booster shots.

They sort of are though. A vaccine works by herd immunity. Clearly if the vaccine created is not safe we wouldn't be giving it to the population so it wouldn't be mass produced. If immunity is short then the vaccine would need to me mass produced and we would have to get everyone vaccinated in a short amount of time - that is creating herd immunity!

 

[edwin_m]

They sort of are though. A vaccine works by herd immunity. Clearly if the vaccine created is not safe we wouldn't be giving it to the population so it wouldn't be mass produced. If immunity is short then the vaccine would need to me mass produced and we would have to get everyone vaccinated in a short amount of time - that is creating herd immunity!

I suggest the distinction here is not between herd immunity and a vaccine as suggested by #51. It's between two possible methods of achieving herd immunity:

• Through a vaccine. This can be done quickly and safely but you need the vaccine!
• Through infection in the community. This carries some level of risk because a proportion of people infected will become seriously ill. Therefore, to prevent the overwhelming of the NHS, some social distancing is necessary to manage the rate of infection. My contention on another thread is that until we have better knowledge of the number of people already infected and the effectiveness of various measures in controlling infection, we have to assume that this process (and therefore the associated control measures such as social distancing) would take many months and possibly years.

 

[Huntergreed]

Those two are not unbreakably linked. In one direction, we might never make a vaccine that is less deadly than covid itself. In the other, if immunity is short, we might never achieve herd immunity naturally but could with a coordinated vaccine schedule and maybe booster shots.

This is not quite true.

Herd immunity is not a process or strategy actually, it is a societal state that occurs when a certain population have developed immunity to a certain virus such that the virus no longer transmits exponentially in the community without imposing additional restrictions to prevent this from occurring. Herd immunity has been referred to by many as a 'process' (and stigmatised due to moral values, which is probably why the government were afraid to use it and eventually opted for a lockdown to keep in public favour) but in fact it is the one of only two ways out of a pandemic, the other being elimination which due to high numbers of the virus around the globe is no longer possible.

We essentially face two options to reach herd immunity. Natural transmission or vaccination. The first will result in significantly more deaths, but due to the state of the economy and the (relatively) low death rate for this virus as far as epidemiology is concerned, this would be a viable option. A government can make interventions to protect those most at risk (ie shielding) whilst allowing the virus to spread through the healthy majority of the population in order to achieve herd immunity naturally. Now that our economy is in such a poor state, we cannot stay locked down forever, so quite frankly unless a vaccine is made (and that's a maybe), the only possible way out of this pandemic is through allowing the virus to spread through the population without letting it overwhelm the NHS. Initially this was achieved through a lockdown, but now that this is becoming economically unsustainable, we need another solution. I would've argued from the start that an approach of natural transmission, whilst implementing the shielding policy, was the correct way to approach this pandemic and would have resulted in far less damage than the glorified house arrest lockdown we ultimately opted for, as this has simply prevented the inevitable, albeit destroying the economy as a side effect.

 

[MikeWM]

Clearly if the vaccine created is not safe we wouldn't be giving it to the population so it wouldn't be mass produced.

That seems a little optimistic Look at the various issues that were caused by the (rushed) swine flu vaccine.

Established vaccines are very good things and we understand how to use them. Rushed ones for diseases we don't yet fully understand are more problematic.

 

[MikeWM]

I would've argued from the start that an approach of natural transmission, whilst implementing the shielding policy, was the correct way to approach this pandemic and would have resulted in far less damage than the glorified house arrest lockdown we ultimately opted for, as this has simply prevented the inevitable, albeit destroying the economy as a side effect.

Yes, I agreed in March, and agree now. As I said above, the strategy of 12th March, which seemed to be more-or-less that, was reassuring to me that the government were going to approach this in the 'least worst' way. Unfortunately they swiftly changed their mind.

I do understand the argument that we may have overwhelmed the NHS without a lockdown, although I believe firstly the risk was overstated (largely based on the images from Italy and Ferguson's appalling modelling) - see Sweden, who never had capacity issues. Also any responsible government would have made sure ahead of time that the health service had a sensible plan for a pandemic (one that didn't include pushing old people with a nasty disease out of hospitals and into care homes). In lieu of the lack of capacity in the NHS (a chronic problem for decades, across multiple governments) the Nightingale hospitals were an impressive achievement, but their construction could have been started a week or two earlier, and then the apparent risk to the NHS would have been mitigated significantly.

 

[Richard Scott]

If a vaccine isn't possible, neither is herd immunity, because they both use the same principle. In that case, we can either maintain social distancing reasonably indefinitely, or we accept that we've just been thrown back to the 1800s in medical terms and have to accept that life expectancy will, unless the virus mutates to be less dangerous, considerably reduce.

This seems very over dramatic, whilst I think we will have to just carry on I don't think life expectancy will 'considerably reduce'. The death toll due to this virus is not large even in older groups (I accept they are more susceptible) and there is no way we've been thrown back to 1800s. There have been many cases of viral outbreaks with outcomes that we don't like i.e. many deaths since the 1800s but even if we're talking of millions of deaths worldwide it still won't have a huge effect on life expectancy overall.

 

[Andyh82]

A few weeks ago, there were posts on social media supporting Boris and suggesting he and his team deserved support for all the work they’d put in to handle the COVID-19 pandemic.

I contend he’ and his cabinet have done an abysmal job, and offer the following as evidence:

* Many experts believe the UK lock down came two to three weeks too late.

That one is certainly with the benefit of hindsight

There hadn’t been a single death from Covid 19 in the UK on the 3rd March, the public wouldn’t have gone for it, Europe hadn’t locked down by then and they were ahead of us.

Spain didn’t lock down until the 14th March when they had had 292 deaths, France didn’t lock down until the 17th March when they had 175 deaths, so the maximum you can be looking at for us is about a week late into lockdown. We’d had 158 deaths on the 18th March.