CORONAVIRUS

[Peter Cobbold]

4 hours ago, john.r.davies said:

Just heard the latest issue of the excellent BBC Radio4 programme, "More or Less".     It criticises and examines scientifically, claims of all sorts and the evidence they use to support them.    This one featured VitD and Covid.      You can listen to it at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000j2r7

The verdict was "Unproven".    There is evidence that low VitD levels expose one to a greater risk of respiratory disease, but only observations, no controlled trials, that show this is true for Covid, or that Covid may be prevented or treated with VitD.     Such trials are running now, in particular, the Covidence UK Study from Queen Mary's London, King's, Swansea, Queen's Belfast, Endinburgh and the Lonson School of Tropical Medicine:  https://www.qmul.ac.uk/covidence/about-the-covidence-uk-study/

From that page, you can volunteer to join in and provide data, so lets all do that!   And get this question answered.

John

PS I've just registered - some searching personal Qs, takes maybe half an hour.

re COVIDENCE: " How long will the  study last?  FIVE YEARS

So lets see, 50,000 excess UK daeths is 3 months= 1 million excess deaths by the time they report. Not to emntion morbidity.

Do I detect a lack of urgency, maybe window-dressing to cover up D3 mis-guidance as long as possible.

" after the horse has bolted" springs to mind.

And I am certain it will not satisfy Iain's criterion, it is not an RCT that NICE would apporve

Peter

 

[Geko]

If a picture is worth a thousand words, this is the very definition of it...

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Geko
add

[Motorsport Mickey]

Looks to me like a picture of the PM  practicing individual isolation, sat at the dispatch box listening intently to what is being said by other MPs via a tele link.
 

Words conjured up to me... attentive, alone, briefed with docs spread around him.
What words do you see ?

Mick Richards

Edited May 13, 2020 by Motorsport Mickey

[Geko]

I see a bozo who didn't practice social distancing and got Covid and still didn't get it... Where would you seat if your were PM, just out of intensive care and supposed to show the example to the British people - at the House of Commons, mind you - ? Then one can elaborate on the political backdrop of that picture...

Edited May 14, 2020 by Geko

[JohnG]

6 hours ago, john.r.davies said:

 Such trials are running now, in particular, the Covidence UK Study from Queen Mary's London, King's, Swansea, Queen's Belfast, Endinburgh and the Lonson School of Tropical Medicine:  https://www.qmul.ac.uk/covidence/about-the-covidence-uk-study/

From that page, you can volunteer to join in and provide data, so lets all do that!   And get this question answered.

John

PS I've just registered - some searching personal Qs, takes maybe half an hour.

 

Ditto John, also signed up.

I understand Peters stance, but, whilst this kind of study may not be perfect, it is doing something.

Peter may well be right, it may prove to be a waste of effort . . . . . I'll take the chance

[Peter Cobbold]

He looks exhausted to me. Ill.

His short break in Mustique may have saved him from the ventilator...or worse.

Peter

[Rod1883]

Very very Harsh Geko.

I see a man, in an unenviable position, doing his utmost to balance the impossible tasks of trying to control the spread of a new novel virus - for which there is no treatment or preventive vaccine - whilst also trying to keep people in work, or funded if they can't work, and not allow the economy to be so badly damaged it will never recover. I also see an exasperated man trying to remain positive and polite when he is harangued by opposition MP's when they said they would work with him, and the media who seem intent on undermining every decision and take cognitive dissonance to a new level.

This is a man who was in intensive care himself just a few weeks back, but his role means he has to be in the House - other MP's should respect him for that and maintain appropriate distancing.

Edit - Cognitive Dissonance - a great term, thanks for using it Nigel in another thread

Edited May 13, 2020 by Rod1883

[Misfit]

26 minutes ago, Rod1883 said:

Very very Harsh Geko.

I see a man, in an unenviable position, doing his utmost to balance the impossible tasks of trying to control the spread of a new novel virus - for which there is no treatment or preventive vaccine - whilst also trying to keep people in work, or funded if they can't work, and not allow the economy to be so badly damaged it will never recover. I also see an exasperated man trying to remain positive and polite when he is harangued by opposition MP's when they said they would work with him, and the media who seem intent on undermining every decision and take cognitive dissonance to a new level.

This is a man who was in intensive care himself just a few weeks back, but his role means he has to be in the House - other MP's should respect him for that and maintain appropriate distancing.

Edit - Cognitive Dissonance - a great term, thanks for using it Nigel in another thread

+ 1

[TorontoTim]

Aren't perspectives interesting?

[JohnG]

12 minutes ago, Derek Hurford said:

+ 1

+2

[RogerH]

The person having to make decisions will always have dissenters.

Has Boris made mistakes - I don;t know.

Has the Gov't made mistakes - yes.  But they were in seriously deep water before they jumped.

Did the opposition do better - no. simply because they did not have the responsibility thrust upon them to take charge. Their track record killed them.

Will we get out of this muddle - of course we will.

Perhaps the medical people that make policy should be looking at themselvesand why they have not been more proactive over the years.

 

Roger

 

[Bleednipple]

14 minutes ago, TorontoTim said:

Aren't perspectives interesting?

Absolutely . Here's another...

At least from the little we're seeing of him at the moment, Boris Johnson does seem to me to be struggling to hold it together. He has indeed been through the mill. His government having got itself onto the back foot by initially mis-calling its strategy during the crucial weeks in late Feb to mid-March (whether because of flawed scientific advice or poor executive judgement remains unclear but the buck stops on the PM's desk), the prime minister found himself in circumstances requiring grasp of detail and an ability to engender trust in competence: simply not qualities Boris can deploy. There have been some positives, notably the NHS holding up rather better than feared, and the cabinet's deftly composed package of economic mitigations. But now BJ is facing the resumption of parliamentary politics, across the despatch box from a new opposition leader who is calmly and effectively eviscerating him him on the government's performance (because he's the opposition leader, that's his job). And the press, even though often clumsily, has done its job in shining spotlights on some panicked dishonesties by the Johnson govt - like the "100,000-a-day tests" (not). 

A tough gig for a fit and healthy man. But BJ is pretty clearly still nowhere near fully fit after the physical and emotional impacts of a severe illness only a few weeks ago.

Do I envy him? No way. But many many people across the country are suffering worse than Boris. Like all political leaders, he asked for the job, in fact he fought tooth and nail to get it. Nothing wrong with that, but all PM's have to expect that they may have to deal with a national emergency.

If he's not up to the job at this point - and I do have to say I suspect he's not - he should step aside and let someone else take it on. That would be the responsible thing to do. On that note I was reading recently another account of the Apollo 13 story. The supremely professional flight director Gene Kranz, at a crucial stage of the emergency, recognised that he was getting burned out and might not be at his 100 percent best, and decided to hand over to a fresh pair of hands for the next phase of the operation. THAT is leadership.

Nigel

 

 

[Peter Cobbold]

Rather a  sick Boris than a  Trump.

[Misfit]

On 5/13/2020 at 6:56 PM, Bleednipple said:

But now BJ is facing the resumption of parliamentary politics, across the despatch box from a new opposition leader who is calmly and effectively eviscerating him him on the government's performance (because he's the opposition leader, that's his job). And the press, even though often clumsily, has done its job in shining spotlights on some panicked dishonesties by the Johnson govt - like the "100,000-a-day tests" (not). 

Ok but what are they achieving? How is any of it constructive? 
We have years before another election, there is plenty of time for Starmer to call the Government to account.

Care home deaths, NHS sending Covid Patients to care homes, Tube trains and buses packed, traffic jams. Public not wearing marks.

I heard on TV Doctors producing death Certificates without knowledge of patients, on the Radio Care Home Proprietor have PPE locked up because they were using to much of it. 

Is all of this,  Boris Johnson responsibility, all of it?  Should others take any share of the blame? 
m

Edited July 27, 2020 by Misfit

[Geko]

3 minutes ago, Derek Hurford said:

Ok but what are they achieving? How is any of it constructive? 
We have years before another election, there is plenty of time for Starmer to call the Government to account.

Care home deaths, NHS sending Covid Patients to care homes, Tube trains and buses packed, traffic jams. Public not wearing marks.

I heard on TV Doctors producing death Certificates without knowledge of patients, on the Radio Care Home Proprietor have PPE locked up because they were using to much of it. 

Is all of this,  Boris Johnson responsibility, all of it?  Should others take any share of the blame? 

Large part of the answer is probably here. "Over the past four years, reckless political decisions were justified by subordinating reality to rhetoric (...) When the business of government becomes limited to populist set pieces, its ranks are purged of doers and populated instead with cheerleaders" 

The fish rots from the head down, nothing new.

[Motorsport Mickey]

2 hours ago, Geko said:

2 hours ago, Derek Hurford said:

Ok but what are they achieving? How is any of it constructive? 
We have years before another election, there is plenty of time for Starmer to call the Government to account.

Care home deaths, NHS sending Covid Patients to care homes, Tube trains and buses packed, traffic jams. Public not wearing marks.

I heard on TV Doctors producing death Certificates without knowledge of patients, on the Radio Care Home Proprietor have PPE locked up because they were using to much of it. 

Is all of this,  Boris Johnson responsibility, all of it?  Should others take any share of the blame? 

 

 

2 hours ago, Geko said:

Large part of the answer is probably here. "Over the past four years, reckless political decisions were justified by subordinating reality to rhetoric (...) When the business of government becomes limited to populist set pieces, its ranks are purged of doers and populated instead with cheerleaders" 

The fish rots from the head down, nothing new.

As said above "Is all of this,  Boris Johnson responsibility, all of it ?"

Boris Johnson did not become Prime Minister until July 2019 some 10 months ago, so even this Guardian article cannot pin the previous 3 years and 2 months on him. Since becoming leader most people would remember and agree him battling against parliament and John Bercow not to mention all the turncoat remainers trying to usurp the referendum vote for Brexit and the BBC trying to scupper it. Throw in a few court battles from a Justice system overreaching themselves and you can see that the actual time Johnson had available was compressed into this area before the General Election held last December and then of course the battling again through Parliament to get ratification of Brexit complete by the end of January (remember that) so that's actually 4 months 2 weeks when Johnson was in control...but otherwise engaged.

Why don't we try and allocate blame for something ...anything...to have been done by all these different factions mentioned above, other than Johnson.

He appears to have been the only one fighting on the Uks side, and if these other complications had stood to the side and let the Brexit referendum decision apply, instead of trying to usurp the peoples will, it would have been done and dusted, and a trade deal been in place over 12 months ago without the constant carping..."we can't get one agreed in the time" ! Leaving time for other thorny decisions to be made.

Mick Richards  

PS: Quoting the Guardian and Nesrine Malik is a tacit akin to throwing in the towel !

Edited May 13, 2020 by Motorsport Mickey

[Misfit]

Geko

Nesrine Malik has written an article offering her point of view, 
Not sure the journalists view given is a balanced one.

[Bleednipple]

10 minutes ago, Motorsport Mickey said:

 

As said above "Is all of this,  Boris Johnson responsibility, all of it ?"

Boris Johnson did not become Prime Minister until July 2019 some 10 months ago, so even this Guardian article cannot pin the previous 3 years and 2 months on him. Since becoming leader most people would remember and agree him battling against parliament and John Bercow not to mention all the turncoat remainers trying to usurp the referendum vote for Brexit and the BBC trying to scupper it. Throw in a few court battles from a Justice system overreaching themselves and you can see that the actual time Johnson had available was compressed into this area before the General Election held last December and then of course the battling again through Parliament to get ratification of Brexit complete by the end of January (remember that) so that's actually 4 months 2 weeks when Johnson was in control...but otherwise engaged.

Why don't we try and allocate blame for something ...anything to have been done by all these factions mentioned above other than Johnson. He appears to have been the only one fighting on the Uks side, and if these other complications had stood to the side and let the Brexit referendum decision apply instead of trying to usurp it would have been done and dusted and a trade deal been in place over 12 months ago without the constant carping..."we can't get one agreed in the time" !

Mick Richards  

PS: Quoting the Guardian and Nesrine Malik is a tacit akin to throwing in the towel !

I think a problem here is the conflation of the notions of responsibility, accountability, and blame. We are I think increasingly at risk of not being 'allowed' to hold political leaders to account, and expecting them to be fully responsible for the decisions made by the governments they lead, without it being assumed that is an attempt to assign partisan blame. I would say that has become more problematic because politics has become more heated and polarised by the 2016 referendum and its aftermath.

When you accept the job of prime minister, surely you must then accept fully your accountability for all the actions of the government you lead, and their consequences. That's "Leadership 101". And, because our prime ministers are also the leaders of their respective political parties, they also have to accept primary responsibility to the public for the actions of their party in parliament and outside it.

I'm not saying a PM is personally blameworthy for everything that goes wrong - unless they were negligent or incompetent. But it's not acceptable to me (as a citizen) for a PM to say, I can't be held to blame for the consequences of that decision, and therefore I'm not responsible for it, even though I'm the leader. (Okay, we can bring in the notion of collective cabinet responsibility, but in the end the PM is still the chair of the cabinet and sets its agenda.)

I accept, to a degree, that a PM isn't accountable for the acts or omissions of their predecessor in office, in a direct way. But I do think the public has a right to expect that the PM should be answerable in some significant part for the past policies and actions of the party they lead, assuming they were members of that party.

Anyway, I hope you get my drift.

Nigel

 

 

[Motorsport Mickey]

1 hour ago, Bleednipple said:

I think a problem here is the conflation of the notions of responsibility, accountability, and blame. We are I think increasingly at risk of not being 'allowed' to hold political leaders to account, and expecting them to be fully responsible for the decisions made by the governments they lead, without it being assumed that is an attempt to assign partisan blame. I would say that has become more problematic because politics has become more heated and polarised by the 2016 referendum and its aftermath.

When you accept the job of prime minister, surely you must then accept fully your accountability for all the actions of the government you lead, and their consequences. That's "Leadership 101". And, because our prime ministers are also the leaders of their respective political parties, they also have to accept primary responsibility to the public for the actions of their party in parliament and outside it.

I'm not saying a PM is personally blameworthy for everything that goes wrong - unless they were negligent or incompetent. But it's not acceptable to me (as a citizen) for a PM to say, I can't be held to blame for the consequences of that decision, and therefore I'm not responsible for it, even though I'm the leader. (Okay, we can bring in the notion of collective cabinet responsibility, but in the end the PM is still the chair of the cabinet and sets its agenda.)

I accept, to a degree, that a PM isn't accountable for the acts or omissions of their predecessor in office, in a direct way. But I do think the public has a right to expect that the PM should be answerable in some significant part for the past policies and actions of the party they lead, assuming they were members of that party.

Anyway, I hope you get my drift.

Nigel

 

 

That may stand up Nigel if the decisions made by prior leaders or governments were totally under their control. As has been proven in the last 2 governments that's not the case, Teresa May was totally outmanoeuvred by the competing forces of Brexit opposed parties and Parliament never mind Gina Miller. It compromised the workings of government to the delight of those opposing it and of course many opposition MPs were delighted to crow that "government is paralysed, we must have an election to find out the will of the people" and when they had an election the people threw many of them out on their ear. !

It's as well for all parliamentarians to note that although power only seems to reside with the ruling party the actions of parliament as a whole is taken into account by the public and when considering the achieved results consulting  the plebeian voting classes in an election may not necessarily deliver a result that is pleasing. It's a long way to the next election and every opportunity will be taken by the opposition to misquote or malign the government to achieve their ends.

Remember, a typical case being the Windrush non allocation of "right to remain documentation" using your "previous governments should always be held to account methodology" although Teresa May as the latest Home Secretary and the Conservatives were slated for not issuing the cards, there were 12 Labour Home Secretaries who didn't issue the Right to remain cards either ( Roy Jenkins being Home Secretary twice...even managed to ignore them twice !) yet it is only the Conservatives who are harangued over it...somethings not right is it ? it's almost as if opinion was trying to be manipulated ? 

Apologies for encouraging any thread drift, this is a Coronavirus thread.

Mick Richards  

Edited May 13, 2020 by Motorsport Mickey

[Motorsport Mickey]

8 hours ago, Peter Cobbold said:

re COVIDENCE: " How long will the  study last?  FIVE YEARS

So lets see, 50,000 excess UK daeths is 3 months= 1 million excess deaths by the time they report. Not to emntion morbidity.

Do I detect a lack of urgency, maybe window-dressing to cover up D3 mis-guidance as long as possible.

" after the horse has bolted" springs to mind.

And I am certain it will not satisfy Iain's criterion, it is not an RCT that NICE would apporve

Peter

 

Seems appropriate

Mick Richards

                                      

[iain]

9 hours ago, Motorsport Mickey said:

Seems appropriate

Mick Richards

                                      

In a nut shell that's how the development/regulatory/licencing/pharma process works. 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by iain

[Motorsport Mickey]

24 minutes ago, iain said:

In a nut shell that's how the development/regulatory/licencing/pharma process works. 

 

Yes, I think that's the tongue in cheek point Iain.

But as the cartoon points out everybody knows the system and as Peter pointed out adhering to it will likely cost many thousands and maybe millions of extra lives lost whilst "the system" grinds exceeding slow and an "approved sausage" ever so slowly emerges from the other end.

Many people like myself without a doctorate or science background would opine that expanding the amount recommended of IU units that D3 should be taken and absorbed by the entire population is a safe course of action that would have minimal if any impact upon public safety( D3 and it's affects is very well known and even the US has stated a IU recommendation many many times that of ours and regards it as safe). The benefits that the increased consumption of D3 would promote in the boosting of the publics immune system would hopefully mitigate any COVID virus affects (not to underplay any other benefits that the D3 may also promote) and help reduce any death toll without a prohibitive financial or societal cost.

In the meantime the established system of trials and confirming science would hopefully establish an inoculation (if possible) that would prove to be long term preventative measure.

I think that's what's referred to as a "belt and braces" or if not a "no cost" a very little cost ongoing method of mitigating the virus affects.

Mick Richards   

[Bleednipple]

10 hours ago, Motorsport Mickey said:

That may stand up Nigel if the decisions made by prior leaders or governments were totally under their control. As has been proven in the last 2 governments that's not the case, Teresa May was totally outmanoeuvred by the competing forces of Brexit opposed parties and Parliament never mind Gina Miller. It compromised the workings of government to the delight of those opposing it and of course many opposition MPs were delighted to crow that "government is paralysed, we must have an election to find out the will of the people" and when they had an election the people threw many of them out on their ear. !

It's as well for all parliamentarians to note that although power only seems to reside with the ruling party the actions of parliament as a whole is taken into account by the public and when considering the achieved results consulting  the plebeian voting classes in an election may not necessarily deliver a result that is pleasing. It's a long way to the next election and every opportunity will be taken by the opposition to misquote or malign the government to achieve their ends.

Remember, a typical case being the Windrush non allocation of "right to remain documentation" using your "previous governments should always be held to account methodology" although Teresa May as the latest Home Secretary and the Conservatives were slated for not issuing the cards, there were 12 Labour Home Secretaries who didn't issue the Right to remain cards either ( Roy Jenkins being Home Secretary twice...even managed to ignore them twice !) yet it is only the Conservatives who are harangued over it...somethings not right is it ? it's almost as if opinion was trying to be manipulated ? 

Apologies for encouraging any thread drift, this is a Coronavirus thread.

Mick Richards  

I guess in that example (the Brexit one, not the Windrush one) I blame David Cameron, for recklessness in setting up a referendum when he knew his own parliamentary party was ideologically split on the issue at hand, but at this point I hold Boris Johnson accountable for sorting it out, as he's now in the driving seat.

N

 

[Motorsport Mickey]

11 minutes ago, Bleednipple said:

I guess in that example (the Brexit one, not the Windrush one) I blame David Cameron, for recklessness in setting up a referendum when he knew his own parliamentary party was ideologically split on the issue at hand, but at this point I hold Boris Johnson accountable for sorting it out, as he's now in the driving seat.

N

 

I think Boris is of the same opinion and so are the many millions of people who put him back into No10. He's already taken gigantic strides using only one arm (that stretches the imagination) whilst using the other arm to fight off the previously described unmentionables from everywhere in the political system still determined that the UK remain in the EU.

The decisions are now made and ongoing, the satisfactory negotiations upon trade deals (or not) are in the pot being stirred, we will come out of it with a deal and I think also without any further delay, then all Brexiteers and Remainers have to prove we have buried the hatchet (not in each other) and make the outcome work.

But enough of this, Coronavirus still looms large on the horizon.

Mick Richards  

Edited May 14, 2020 by Motorsport Mickey

[Bleednipple]

And to inject (ha ha) a note of positivity, I was pleased to read this short article by a viral immunologist who explains why she believes one or mores vaccines will very likely be developed in the not-too-distant:

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-vaccine-reasons-to-be-optimistic-137209?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest from The Conversation for May 14 2020 - 1621515559&utm_content=Latest from The Conversation for May 14 2020 - 1621515559+CID_f50585a3d7d7223a4be9059fc5cccb00&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=And she gives several good reasons why

The first part of the article is about the basics of how all vaccines work, which a lot of us will already be familiar with from general knowledge. But in the second half she outlines her reasons for believing SARS-CoV-2 will prove susceptible to one or more vaccines. We might I suppose be more wary of her final assertion the this coronavirus can be fully eradicated, even though smallpox eventually was.

As a non-medic, I thought it was a good summary anyway.

Nigel

Edited May 14, 2020 by Bleednipple