How effective are the daily COVID-19 Press Conferences?

[C J Snarzell]

Without putting the cart before the horse I have a feeling that the UK government's response to Covid19 will ultimately lead to a full public enquiry that is likely to last for several years - it probably would not be sanctioned until next year when we have hopefully gone back to some sort of normality. A full public enquiry into the deaths of so far 16,000+ people will involve hundreds of coroners & investigators forming regional hubs across the UK where their evidence will be reviewed by a top team of senior people who would have to be impartial from the government.

My own personal opinion is that some of the lockdown measures should have been implemented as early as the end of February. By that time, we got to the 23rd March a lot of the damage had been done. Some of the decision making in the last few weeks has been questionable. One of the major issues now coming to light is how the Chinese government co-operated with the western world when the virus was first detected as there is now suggestion that they may not have fully disclosed the implications of the original outbreak back in December.

CJ

 

[Ianno87]

He should but he wont becuase to do so would also require an admission that at least a decade of Tory policy has been wrong, damaged our society and led to the deaths of thousands of people AND admit his part at the head of all of this.

Not going to happen.

To be fair, an apology on it's own wouldn't be particularlt helpful about now, unless accompanied with an "and here's what we're doing about it". The latter I suspect is the difficult bit for them....

Mandy Rice Davies famous quote spring to mind with Gove's response. Having just read the whole of today's Sunday Times report it is pretty damning.

It states Matt Hancock chaired the meetings, but as we are all seeing a pandemic isn't a health issue. It is a cross Government issue, hence the PM should have been chairing it to set strategies.

Covid-19 is probably one of the biggest global crises since WWII... so the PM being involved seems absolutely appropriate.

 

[HH]

Mandy Rice Davies famous quote spring to mind with Gove's response. Having just read the whole of today's Sunday Times report it is pretty damning.

It states Matt Hancock chaired the meetings, but as we are all seeing a pandemic isn't a health issue. It is a cross Government issue, hence the PM should have been chairing it to set strategies.

The PM did join the meetings - ONCE HE REALISED that there was a looming crisis. The problem is that he realised it a bit later than he should have. Quite a bit later.

 

[DarloRich]

To be fair, an apology on it's own wouldn't be particularlt helpful about now, unless accompanied with an "and here's what we're doing about it". The latter I suspect is the difficult bit for them....

I agree - and they might also have to express something other than silly soundbites such as working every hour and working night and day and national effort and such like.

It is clear their cock ups have cost lives in both staff and patients

 

[DarloRich]

The PM did join the meetings - ONCE HE REALISED that there was a looming crisis. The problem is that he realised it a bit later than he should have. Quite a bit later.

Agreed - it took him, imo, too long to "grip" the situation and then he did so poorly.

 

[kermit]

My own personal opinion is that some of the lockdown measures should have been implemented as early as the end of February. By that time, we got to the 23rd March a lot of the damage had been done. Some of the decision making in the last few weeks has been questionable. One of the major issues now coming to light is how the Chinese government co-operated with the western world when the virus was first detected as there is now suggestion that they may not have fully disclosed the implications of the original outbreak back in December.

CJ

I'm no apologist for our government and their race-to-the-bottom Brexit baloney. But there is a danger of 20/20 hindsight being applied here. In recent times, SARS, MERS and Ebola all had the potential to escalate into deadly pandemics, but they did not (so far - remember viruses, like rust, don't sleep!). And beware the narrative of "Blame China" - there's a desperate egomaniac with a lot riding on that horse!

 

[causton]

That's not how democracy works! Scrutiny ABSOLUTELY should not be behind closed doors.

The main problem is the unwillingness of ministers to answer questions.

Exactly, hence the quotes.

The current setup is not working evidently.

Yes, we do need to be able to hold people accountable to their actions, but is that briefing the correct place and time for it?

 

[DarloRich]

Exactly, hence the quotes.

The current setup is not working evidently.

Yes, we do need to be able to hold people accountable to their actions, but is that briefing the correct place and time for it?

it is the only tool we have until parliament is in session

 

[Mogster]

Without putting the cart before the horse I have a feeling that the UK government's response to Covid19 will ultimately lead to a full public enquiry that is likely to last for several years - it probably would not be sanctioned until next year when we have hopefully gone back to some sort of normality. A full public enquiry into the deaths of so far 16,000+ people will involve hundreds of coroners & investigators forming regional hubs across the UK where their evidence will be reviewed by a top team of senior people who would have to be impartial from the government.

My own personal opinion is that some of the lockdown measures should have been implemented as early as the end of February. By that time, we got to the 23rd March a lot of the damage had been done. Some of the decision making in the last few weeks has been questionable. One of the major issues now coming to light is how the Chinese government co-operated with the western world when the virus was first detected as there is now suggestion that they may not have fully disclosed the implications of the original outbreak back in December.

CJ

No particular fan of Boris but the cautious response was on the back of epidemiologists repeatedly crying wolf. Flu strains that were going to kill 50 million have ended up being no more dangerous than regular flu over and over. Shutting down the country’s economy is not an easy choice.

2009 swine flu is a good example.

Reconstruction of a Mass Hysteria: The Swine Flu Panic of 2009

Swine flu kept the world in suspense for almost a year. A massive vaccination campaign was mounted to put a stop to the anticipated pandemic. But, as it turned out, it was a relatively harmless strain of the flu virus. How, and why, did the world overreact? A reconstruction. By SPIEGEL staff.

www.google.co.uk

Swine flu kept the world in suspense for almost a year. A massive vaccination campaign was mounted to put a stop to the anticipated pandemic. But, as it turned out, it was a relatively harmless strain of the flu virus. How, and why, did the world overreact?

 

[DarloRich]

No particular fan of Boris but the cautious response was on the back of epidemiologists repeatedly crying wolf. Flu strains that were going to kill 50 million have ended up being no more dangerous than regular flu over and over. Shutting down the country’s economy is not an easy choice.

It wasn't a cautious response. It was no response until it was ( perhaps) too late. Lets not forget his actions at the start of this when other countries were taking drastic action: Don't go on a cruise and wash your hands.

People have died because of his "cautious" approach

 

[SuperNova]

A national crisis with 15k plus dead and you dont want scrutiny or challenge to an clearly inept and poorly prepared government! Beggars belief.

I'm not sure why you've quoted me when my post explicitly says I want the government spokesperson to be questioned by other elected officials, who would be better at asking the questions than journalists.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm not sure why you've quoted me when my post explicitly says I want the government spokesperson to be questioned by other elected officials, who would be better at asking the questions than journalists.

because that is going to be seen by 3 politico nerds in 3 years time. Questions need to be asked NOW in public. An inference should be drawn from the unwillingness or inability of minsters to answer.

BTW we need an enquiry when this is over. We also needs answers now.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

My own personal opinion is that some of the lockdown measures should have been implemented as early as the end of February. By that time, we got to the 23rd March a lot of the damage had been done. Some of the decision making in the last few weeks has been questionable. One of the major issues now coming to light is how the Chinese government co-operated with the western world when the virus was first detected as there is now suggestion that they may not have fully disclosed the implications of the original outbreak back in December.

CJ

Unfortunately the facts don't bear out your theory; a custom search on Google reveals that, by the 27 February there were a mere 15 cases of people in the UK having caught Coronavirus.

CMO for England announces 2 new cases of novel coronavirus

Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Whitty statement on 2 new cases of COVID-19 passed on in Italy and Tenerife.

www.gov.uk

"Two further patients in England have tested positive for COVID-19, bringing the total number of UK cases to 15.
The virus was passed on in Italy and Tenerife and the patients have been transferred to specialist NHS infection centres in Royal Liverpool Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital, London."

Anyone suggesting the UK economy should have been closed down and everyone locked in their homes at that stage would have been laughed out of town!

My view is that, broadly speaking, the UK government enforced the lockdown round about the right time bearing in mind the difficult balancing act between economic stability and public safety. Inevitably there are people on internet forums who rage hysterically against this just because they don't like Conservative politicians, but Coronavirus isn't a party political issue and I can't imagine any other UK political party would have done things much differently.

 

[Andyh82]

The questions asked are mostly unanswerable, and tend to be attempts to trick them into suggesting an answer that the press could run with.

“A report today says that lockdown will last until the end of the year, would the minister agree with this”

If you lead towards agreeing, the press would run a doom and gloom headline, if you lead towards disagreeing or giving a date, the press will hold them to account on that date, so the only answer is a vague one.

“A report by a leading economic organisation says that financial effects from this will last a generation, would you agree”
“A report by a leading health organisation says the number of deaths in the UK will exceed [insert big number designed to panic]”

Another regular type of question, which again is just to just to lead to half a sound bite which can then be run with.

 

[DarloRich]

Unfortunately the facts don't bear out your theory; a custom search on Google reveals that, by the 27 February there were a mere 15 cases of people in the UK having caught Coronavirus.

I agree lockdown at that point was not realistic as the public would have simply laughed it off.

However, I think the time could and should have been used better to prepare as it was obvious problems were building elsewhere. I also think the Government was late in commencing the lockdown. It should have been when Johnson stood up and said this was the greatest public health crisis in a generation and people will die before their time. Lets not forget his response was: wash your hands, don't go on a cruise and stop at home if you have a sniffle. It was ridiculed. Rightly.

He was behind the curve by about a fortnight. We are paying for that in lives just as we are paying in health care workers loves for the failure to provide PPE. Sorry if that is too party political for you.

BTW - i would criticise an incompetent government of any colour especially one headed by Corbyn whom i detest more than Johnson ( i think) .

 

[Darandio]

Unfortunately the facts don't bear out your theory; a custom search on Google reveals that, by the 27 February there were a mere 15 cases of people in the UK having caught Coronavirus.

As early as January scientists and officials were warning them that it would get much worse here and the most recent inventory checks showed we were woefully underprepared, our stocks of relevant equipment were inadequate and in many cases out of date. They were being told to follow the science then and did nothing for weeks. Now all we are told is that they are following the science.

This isnt hindsight, it's been completely mismanaged the whole process has been a failure since January.

 

[Mogster]

As early as January scientists and officials were warning them that it would get much worse here and the most recent inventory checks showed we were woefully underprepared, our stocks of relevant equipment were inadequate and in many cases out of date. They were being told to follow the science then and did nothing for weeks. Now all we are told is that they are following the science.

This isnt hindsight, it's been completely mismanaged the whole process has been a failure since January.

Epidemiologists warn of devastating pandemics every few years though, they have been wrong so many times previously that governments understandably have low confidence in them. You can’t ignore that fact by referring to doomsday predictions from January.

Rightly at the WHO’s request we were sending planeloads of PPE to China in January. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[SuperNova]

because that is going to be seen by 3 politico nerds in 3 years time. Questions need to be asked NOW in public. An inference should be drawn from the unwillingness or inability of minsters to answer.

BTW we need an enquiry when this is over. We also needs answers now.

I'm not on about a Select Committee, which is actually always more of public interest than the public realise. I'm on about a daily version of PMQ's with questions from the opposition, rather than Laura Kuenssburg asking questions that have already been answered.

Dr Rosena Allin-Khan has been questioning the government for 3 weeks over Twitter, stupidly the only means of any MP's holding the government to account, over their decision to ignore the science and only isolate for 7 days rather than the advised 14. The response of Nadine Dorries MP, a minister in the Department of Health, stop playing politics. Get the MP's involved in these press conference and allow them to ask the hard hitting questions with follow ups, like parliament, so we can properly hold the government to account.

There will also inevitably be a public inquiry. I suspect it will be more severely damning for Boris and the Tories than Chilcot ever was for Blair.

 

[Domh245]

over their decision to ignore the science and only isolate for 7 days rather than the advised 14.

I'd be interested if you could expand on this - I can't find any references from the WHO for people to isolate for 14 days other than being the recommended period of quarantine - which is what was used for UK advice anyway?

 

[SuperNova]

I'd be interested if you could expand on this - I can't find any references from the WHO for people to isolate for 14 days other than being the recommended period of quarantine - which is what was used for UK advice anyway?

"People infected with COVID-19 can still infect others after they stop feeling sick, so these measures should continue for at least two weeks after symptoms disappear."

Source: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/det...he-media-briefing-on-covid-19---16-march-2020

A selection of news articles: https://inews.co.uk/news/health/mat...t-quarantine-is-international-outlier-2527275

Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock ‘should self-isolate for 14 days’, says Labour's Rosena Allin-Khan

Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock should stay in self-isolation for 14 days after being diagnosed with coronavirus, according to a Labour deputy leade...

www.politicshome.com

Boris Johnson's COV19 isolation should last 14 days not seven, MP doctor demands

Tooting MP Dr Rosena Allin-Khan has said the PM must follow the WHO guidance and stay in isolation for two weeks

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Mogster]

Dr Rosena Allin-Khan has been questioning the government for 3 weeks over Twitter, stupidly the only means of any MP's holding the government to account, over their decision to ignore the science and only isolate for 7 days rather than the advised 14.

My workplace provides services to the NHS.

The rules we’ve been told to apply are 14 days isolation for contact with a likely infected person, 7 days for symptoms. If symptoms persist then we are extending the isolation period. Really if you have a persistent cough and a temperature you shouldn’t be working anyway. People with very mild symptoms are staying in work, we have to be pragmatic.

We have people attempting to come to work who really shouldn’t and have to be sent home. We have the opposite with people on 2nd and 3rd rounds of self isolation... It’s a very difficult situation.

 

[bramling]

There will also inevitably be a public inquiry. I suspect it will be more severely damning for Boris and the Tories than Chilcot ever was for Blair.

I can’t really see that. Whilst I have some level of agreement with the notion that Boris’s response has been “behind the curve”, I think most people will probably conclude his response has probably been in good faith. He will also be able to say that at all times he has acted upon the advice from scientists.

On the other hand Blair will never shake off memories of things like sexed-up dossiers.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I haven't watched any of them, better for the mind. Questions should always be asked though, no power without accountability. I'm aware it is not the time for time wasting debates and arguments but if we discover that X has happened and it was badly managed then person Y can be moved to another role so they don't repeat any errors of judgement.

 

[scotrail158713]

Epidemiologists warn of devastating pandemics every few years though, they have been wrong so many times previously that governments understandably have low confidence in them. You can’t ignore that fact by referring to doomsday predictions from January.

Rightly at the WHO’s request we were sending planeloads of PPE to China in January. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Agreed

 

[DarloRich]

Dr Rosena Allin-Khan has been questioning the government for 3 weeks over Twitter, stupidly the only means of any MP's holding the government to account, over their decision to ignore the science and only isolate for 7 days rather than the advised 14. The response of Nadine Dorries MP, a minister in the Department of Health, stop playing politics. Get the MP's involved in these press conference and allow them to ask the hard hitting questions with follow ups, like parliament, so we can properly hold the government to account.

There will also inevitably be a public inquiry. I suspect it will be more severely damning for Boris and the Tories than Chilcot ever was for Blair.

I dont disagree with you. However the media scrutiny also needs to play a part otherwise we will simply have soundbite coverage of "straining every sinew" "working every hour" "national effort" "well prepared" "unprecedented situation" "unforeseen crisis" etc etc. We need the national focus and attention that only the press can bring and certainly in this situation the audience is much more captive. Everyone has access to the BBC not everyone knows who Dr Rosena Allin-Khan is or uses social media.

I can’t really see that. Whilst I have some level of agreement with the notion that Boris’s response has been “behind the curve”, I think most people will probably conclude his response has probably been in good faith. He will also be able to say that at all times he has acted upon the advice from scientists.

On the other hand Blair will never shake off memories of things like sexed-up dossiers.

I don't think Johnson has acted in bad faith. I just think he has been casual, disinterested, been inappropriately jocular and bullish, avoided detail, avoided hard decisions until almost too late, presented information poorly and wasted crucial time that could have been used to mitigate the impact of this situation by not seeming to give much of a stuff. I also think his cabinet have floundered without him and shown how limited in ability and intellect many of them are.

I am sure he does now take this very seriously but people have died because of his casual approach. He must know the game might be up for him after this. All his dreams of being ultimate world king collapsing to ashes almost in the moment of victory.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I am sure he does now take this very seriously but people have died because of his casual approach. He must know the game might be up for him after this. All his dreams of being ultimate world king collapsing to ashes almost in the moment of victory.

Have you any evidence of this? No-one knows what difference it would have made to the death toll had the lockdown been imposed earlier or if, like Sweden, a lockdown hadn't been imposed at all.

I don't think Johnson has acted in bad faith. I just think he has been casual, disinterested, been inappropriately jocular and bullish, avoided detail, avoided hard decisions until almost too late, presented information poorly and wasted crucial time that could have been used to mitigate the impact of this situation by not seeming to give much of a stuff. I also think his cabinet have floundered without him and shown how limited in ability and intellect many of them are.

Yes, from your dozens of posts on this thread we get that you don't like Boris Johnson. But if you'd been PM what would you have done differently?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm surprised there are not more questions about the case numbers, particularly over deaths and their distribution.
I increasingly suspect the numbers are being "managed", as it becomes clear how limited and confused the sources are.
What's disconcerting is the way deaths from days/weeks ago were omitted at the time, so you can't tell how accurate the daily figures are.
The briefings are solely by "English" people, representing NHS/Public Health England with a cabinet minister who often has only an English portfolio.
The devolved authorities are never present, to give their local point of view and opinions.
It would be more of a national effort if the devolved nations were present at the daily briefings, perhaps in rotation.

While the case statistics are presented in a UK sense, they are not the sum of the 4 separate national stats because of how the numbers are collected.
England breaks cases down to Local Authority level, but Wales only gives them on a Health Board level.
So eg Cheshire West knows its number of cases but North Wales has to make do with an aggregate number over its 6 constituent counties.
Deaths are not broken down geographically, and in any case do not include deaths outside hospitals.
I suspect that is a feature of the central government NHS owning the figures, and with no responsibility for the many private care homes or local government premises.
The lack of testing is a continuing handicap in trusting the statistics.

I appreciate the difficulties in collecting and presenting these figures, but it looks like a management or ministerial failure that total health care sector numbers are not available as part of a daily update, and broken down on a geographical basis. I note that France reports deaths in care homes in its daily updates.
I happen to live in a rural area of Wales with, I think, a very low incidence of Covid-19 cases.
But I have no means of knowing if that is true, or where the hot spots are where you'd expect resources to be concentrated and the strongest quarantine measures to be applied.
It also encourages unfounded rumours of the disease spreading like wildfire.

It's reminiscent of the Falklands War situation, where all news was funnelled through the MoD who were very careful about releasing data, as they would be in wartime.
This cautionary note from history applies:

In 1917 a Republican Senator named Hiram W Johnson coined the phrase, “The first casualty when war comes is truth,” meaning that wartime is always accompanied by lies and deception

We are in a sort of war, aren't we?

Tim Harford's excellent More or Less programme on R4 attempts to analyse the stats further and get behind the small print, but he can only go on the official figures.

 

[scotrail158713]

Yes, from your dozens of posts on this thread we get that you don't like Boris Johnson. But if you'd been PM what would you have done differently?

That’s where I’ve restricted my criticism recently. I’m no fan of Boris Johnson but I’ve no idea what I’d do differently to reduce the impact of Covid19, and the consequences.

 

[DarloRich]

Have you any evidence of this? No-one knows what difference it would have made to the death toll had the lockdown been imposed earlier or if, like Sweden, a lockdown hadn't been imposed at all.

None. Oh apart from the nurses and health care people who have died. Perhaps we could have given them better PPE. Here are some of their faces and stories. Take a look.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...uk-health-workers-who-have-died-from-covid-19

The Guardian say 81 have died. The government say 27. The real figure is, I suspect, higher. No doubt you will say 81 isn't a very big number and isn't a problem. I disagree. We need these people and Johnson and his government have let them down.

Yes, from your dozens of posts on this thread we get that you don't like Boris Johnson. But if you'd been PM what would you have done differently?

The simple answer is everything. I have a very different personality to Johnson and have had very different professional and private life experiences on which my personality is built. I have an entirely different mindset and outlook on life and I am certainly less casual when it comes to my professional life. I would certainly behave in a more professional manner and try to prepare better even in the short time between the end of January and actual lockdown. I would certainly have locked down sooner than Johnson ( when he told us not go on a cruise) and probably been more prescriptive about what could happen during lock-down.

I think his government have done what they needed to do/practically could do to support people economically and done well to get this in place quickly so deserve credit for that. It isn't working brilliantly but the structure has been built from nothing in no time.

It is clear from your postings that you think Johnson is wonderful and blameless for all these deaths. I disagree.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I still standby my theory that the lockdown should have been implemented earlier.

During the week commencing the 9th March it was clear our social patterns were changing slightly and I was seeing a notable difference in how busy public places were. The news stories about Italy & Spain were clearly emphasising the real threat that the UK was about to face and I overheard comments from work colleagues that maybe the government should be doing something now to stop what was happening in sister countries.

By the week commencing the 16th March we were all aware that this was a massive problem and some of us (including myself) began to question whether a journey was necessary or should we be doing this or visiting such a person. I was paying in money at my local bank on the 17th March and I felt a sense that this environment is not right and people were already preparing for the worst. The panic buying had already started by then and there was a feeling that we were bracing for very changing times and uncertain circumstances. My own opinion that week was of feeling like I was on a ship sailing into uncharted territory without a captain taking the wheel.

The television announcement from Boris Johnson on the 23rd March was greatly expected but my feelings are that - had BJ stepped in a week earlier to implement the lockdown, then maybe even a small number of deaths could have been avoided.

CJ