Government fell disastrously short in dealing with Covid – Cummings(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Government fell disastrously short in dealing with Covid – Cummings
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57253578
67 comments
1. He's obviously an asshole.
2. He's obviously right; the UK response was absolutely crazy.
One thing that struck me is that he tweeted a picture of the graph[1] the government was using when they were going for the 'herd immunity' strategy.
We'd seen that graph before, but the lines didn't have numbers on them.
The government briefing graph had numbers, and their 'optimum' number was 250k deaths.
Which is, you know, terrifying.
[1] https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1396493979064094720
2. He's obviously right; the UK response was absolutely crazy.
One thing that struck me is that he tweeted a picture of the graph[1] the government was using when they were going for the 'herd immunity' strategy.
We'd seen that graph before, but the lines didn't have numbers on them.
The government briefing graph had numbers, and their 'optimum' number was 250k deaths.
Which is, you know, terrifying.
[1] https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1396493979064094720
On (2), it's not that I disagree. But he's apologizing on behalf of the government, where he singlehandedly in his personal decision cost lives too.
And that's in addition to the fact that as a member of that government he's also collectively responsible.
Yes, both things can be true. He can be an asshole who singlehandedly cost lives by undermining what effort the government was making, AND he's right that the government didn't do enough.
So he was part of poor handling of the fire, but then on his own time he went to the fire station and blew up some firetrucks for fun, while the fire was still raging.
And that's in addition to the fact that as a member of that government he's also collectively responsible.
Yes, both things can be true. He can be an asshole who singlehandedly cost lives by undermining what effort the government was making, AND he's right that the government didn't do enough.
So he was part of poor handling of the fire, but then on his own time he went to the fire station and blew up some firetrucks for fun, while the fire was still raging.
I actually think the just (although extremely unlikely) response to all of this would be to start a criminal investigation against the people involved in the response.
If you run a factory which, by some accident, kills tens of thousands of people, you can expect a criminal investigation for gross negligence. The same rules should apply here. The vast gap between the UK's death rate and the death rates of similar nations must be explained.
If you run a factory which, by some accident, kills tens of thousands of people, you can expect a criminal investigation for gross negligence. The same rules should apply here. The vast gap between the UK's death rate and the death rates of similar nations must be explained.
This is a nice thought but applying corporate manslaughter charges in this way within government would have a raft of unintended consequences.
The unfortunate reality is that governments have to make life and death decisions on a daily basis, so making it illegal for them to make decisions where more people will die would have a highly restrictive effect (examples below).
If a reallocation of NHS budget funding in the future causes an increase in a certain illness, could the chancellor be sued?
Could ministers be put in jail for smart motorways, where motorways have become more dangerous and cause more death in order to increase their capacity? (It was cheaper than doing a full widening)
Is it possible for a president to declare a war, or push the red button, without getting put behind bars?
The unfortunate reality is that governments have to make life and death decisions on a daily basis, so making it illegal for them to make decisions where more people will die would have a highly restrictive effect (examples below).
If a reallocation of NHS budget funding in the future causes an increase in a certain illness, could the chancellor be sued?
Could ministers be put in jail for smart motorways, where motorways have become more dangerous and cause more death in order to increase their capacity? (It was cheaper than doing a full widening)
Is it possible for a president to declare a war, or push the red button, without getting put behind bars?
There's a difference between policies that have unintended consequences, and simple incompetence, carelessness, or malice. I actually think heads of state should take a great deal more care when declaring wars, and Generals should take a lot more care in their prosecution - part of the humanitarian cost of essential legal immunity for heads of state is that a lot of wars are fought for essentially political reasons when a peaceful solution is absolutely possible, or the war itself serves no purpose. If the Blair administration had been put on trial for their actions in the run up to the Iraq war, for instance, there's no doubt that a reasonable court would frown upon the extent to which they mislead the public, and the disastrous effects of these efforts.
Maybe they would be found innocent, maybe not, but a depoliticized analysis of the extent to which they were culpable for the outcomes of their decisions would be very useful to the public at large.
In the case of the coronavirus response, the UK has double the death rate of similar nations (France, Germany), which are themselves not exemplars of a successful response. This is an extreme circumstance, on the level of a war, indeed worse than the second world war for british civilians, and it absolutely makes sense that people should be held accountable.
Maybe they would be found innocent, maybe not, but a depoliticized analysis of the extent to which they were culpable for the outcomes of their decisions would be very useful to the public at large.
In the case of the coronavirus response, the UK has double the death rate of similar nations (France, Germany), which are themselves not exemplars of a successful response. This is an extreme circumstance, on the level of a war, indeed worse than the second world war for british civilians, and it absolutely makes sense that people should be held accountable.
Can you name a recent prime minister who wouldn't have been found guilty under this law?
We have already argued for Blair and Boris.
Cameron was bombing hospitals so he’s going to go too…
It wouldn’t be manslaughter, but what about the windrush scandal? Maybe we could get May for that too.
Brown might be safe, is that it? All others behind bars?
In terms of COVID being worse than the Second World War for civilians I think this takes a very rosey perspective of the Second World War - for instance you are only counting “civilian” deaths but let’s not forget that there was a mandatory draft so the soldiers were effectively civilians with guns, and millions of our civilians were forced into the battlefield (but I guess we did have to sit around in our underwear and watch lots of Netflix). While each death is also a tragedy, I also think we have to take age into account, and appreciate that those young men in the battlefield had a lot more life left in them than the average COVID death.
We have already argued for Blair and Boris.
Cameron was bombing hospitals so he’s going to go too…
It wouldn’t be manslaughter, but what about the windrush scandal? Maybe we could get May for that too.
Brown might be safe, is that it? All others behind bars?
In terms of COVID being worse than the Second World War for civilians I think this takes a very rosey perspective of the Second World War - for instance you are only counting “civilian” deaths but let’s not forget that there was a mandatory draft so the soldiers were effectively civilians with guns, and millions of our civilians were forced into the battlefield (but I guess we did have to sit around in our underwear and watch lots of Netflix). While each death is also a tragedy, I also think we have to take age into account, and appreciate that those young men in the battlefield had a lot more life left in them than the average COVID death.
I'm not really proposing a new law - just the application of existing laws about manslaughter to people who, historically, do a lot of it. Just because there are a lot of prime ministers that have fallen well short of any reasonable standard when it came to decisions that cost lives does not mean that we should continue to give governments carte blanche.
What you are describing is not a dysfunctional idea, but rather a dysfunctional system where there is no accountability. Boris Johnson can break the rules on donations (for example), pick an investigator for an 'independent investigation', and nobody will even mention the fact that it's a complete farce, because all the journalists are afraid of losing access.
What you are describing is not a dysfunctional idea, but rather a dysfunctional system where there is no accountability. Boris Johnson can break the rules on donations (for example), pick an investigator for an 'independent investigation', and nobody will even mention the fact that it's a complete farce, because all the journalists are afraid of losing access.
Agreed on all, but worth discussing this point:
> he government briefing graph had numbers, and their 'optimum' number was 250k deaths.
Even if we say the worst of Covid in the Uk is over, the roll just from direct Covid is something like 160k lives - more than half the 250k number.
But then you add all the deaths from lack of treatment, surgery, etc and I think it is becoming a blurred picture.
Add economic impact trickling down to NHS funding and I really wonder how current response compares to letting it all rip.
I’m not saying you should just let people die. Rather, sometimes you’re dealt a crap hand, and you can’t know which of the awful options is good until after the game.
> he government briefing graph had numbers, and their 'optimum' number was 250k deaths.
Even if we say the worst of Covid in the Uk is over, the roll just from direct Covid is something like 160k lives - more than half the 250k number.
But then you add all the deaths from lack of treatment, surgery, etc and I think it is becoming a blurred picture.
Add economic impact trickling down to NHS funding and I really wonder how current response compares to letting it all rip.
I’m not saying you should just let people die. Rather, sometimes you’re dealt a crap hand, and you can’t know which of the awful options is good until after the game.
You are speaking as if the people dying by lack of treatments / surgery would have been avoided if COVID had been left uncontrolled, which is the total opposite.
All the beds would have been occupied by COVID patients!
That's what happened with the 3rd wave in Canada, most 80+ already had their vaccine so the death count wasn't high but everyone who got covid in lower age brackets spent weeks (and are still there), which forced some hospitals to move their ICU ward to parking lots in army Baracks.
All the beds would have been occupied by COVID patients!
That's what happened with the 3rd wave in Canada, most 80+ already had their vaccine so the death count wasn't high but everyone who got covid in lower age brackets spent weeks (and are still there), which forced some hospitals to move their ICU ward to parking lots in army Baracks.
The 250k number was not completely uncontrolled. It was apparently supposed to be "optimal" in the sense that it's the fastest way to reach same number of people who would eventually die whether it took 3 months or a year to reach herd immunity. The plan still includes social distancing and things to prevent it becoming overwhelming.
Maybe. I would still like to see a thorough analysis (post mitten if you like). Everyone takes it for granted, it is not obvious to me. But of course possible.
> all the deaths from lack of treatment, surgery,
Is there evidence of any of these? I thought this was just a political talking point that wasn't based in reality of any sort, as there hasn't been any academic quantification of it that I have found, and I haven't even found any stories about anecdotes in the media, which is exactly the sort of thing the media loves to sensationalize.
Is there evidence of any of these? I thought this was just a political talking point that wasn't based in reality of any sort, as there hasn't been any academic quantification of it that I have found, and I haven't even found any stories about anecdotes in the media, which is exactly the sort of thing the media loves to sensationalize.
9% of people in England, and 23% of people in Northern Ireland, have had crucial treatment or surgery postponed, effectively indefinitely. This isn’t necessarily all life-threatening, eg includes hip replacements etc. but that’s not exactly benign either. Note these are percentages of population, not of patients or cases.
A friend of mine is a senior neurologist at a major hospital in the UK. He said that under Covid all his junior medics, who do a lot of the actual treatments and other legwork, disappeared to other departments. Not only are they not treating and diagnosing neurological patients, but also not getting the job-specific training for when Covid is over.
This is sort of quantitative anecdata, granted, but serious enough that it makes me think it is a real issue.
A friend of mine is a senior neurologist at a major hospital in the UK. He said that under Covid all his junior medics, who do a lot of the actual treatments and other legwork, disappeared to other departments. Not only are they not treating and diagnosing neurological patients, but also not getting the job-specific training for when Covid is over.
This is sort of quantitative anecdata, granted, but serious enough that it makes me think it is a real issue.
In a vacuum, I would agree. However, given that 'herd immunity' was absolutely not the approach east asian countries were going for, many of which had been battling with COVID already, and who had a great deal of experience in respiratory diseases, I think it was at best reckless.
I guess the thing that bugs me is that Boris Johnson is kind of a flippant person, and that approach carried over to the response to COVID, with the weeks of head-start we got being wasted as he missed important meetings to work on a Shakespeare book, and made the whole thing out to be some kind of joke, when if he had actually being paying attention, he probably would have seen it for the deadly threat it was before he caught it (and nearly died of it).
I guess the thing that bugs me is that Boris Johnson is kind of a flippant person, and that approach carried over to the response to COVID, with the weeks of head-start we got being wasted as he missed important meetings to work on a Shakespeare book, and made the whole thing out to be some kind of joke, when if he had actually being paying attention, he probably would have seen it for the deadly threat it was before he caught it (and nearly died of it).
I’m curious how Sweden’s herd immunity strategy worked out for them?
Seems pretty well, actually. I'd be interested to know why - I'm also not entirely clear if they 'stayed the course'. I think there's also the aspect that not all lockdowns are created equal, so it's possible that the swedish restrictions might be actually more restrictive (in terms of virus spread, if not civil liberties) than the UK ones, which had a notable gap when it came to workplaces.
> He added that "in a well-run entity", the prime minister could have appointed a "sort of dictator" to run the Covid response, with the power to "fire anybody or move anybody".
That was him basically, no? That’s what makes it all worse. “The government’s decisions [that I took/forced] were awful and someone [other than me] should be held responsible”.
That was him basically, no? That’s what makes it all worse. “The government’s decisions [that I took/forced] were awful and someone [other than me] should be held responsible”.
[deleted]
Well he hasn’t even finished yet, so let’s wait until he is done before we blame him for stuff he hasn’t said.
Not holding my breath.
This quote comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ps2lTqaVNw&t=331s
This quote comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ps2lTqaVNw&t=331s
I wouldn't expect you to hold your breath for a few hours, but if you waited you woul dhave discovered that he did agree that his actions undermined public confidence and apologised calling it a “terrible, terrible, terrible mistake”, .
Which government didn't? I mean, I look around, and nobody really has it figured out. Countries that did 'OK' with initial COVID infections, regressed when variants hit. India is the prime example (but Japan is also struggling) - and the most perplexing - why was the initial wave so light, and the current wave so destructive? It seems the difference is the variants.
Speaking of which, it's not wholly clear that the discrepancy in outcomes between Asian nations (specifically Korea and Japan) and European/North American nations isn't a result of a more dangerous and virulent COVID strain being active in the latter.
Speaking of which, it's not wholly clear that the discrepancy in outcomes between Asian nations (specifically Korea and Japan) and European/North American nations isn't a result of a more dangerous and virulent COVID strain being active in the latter.
Germany did pretty well, specially considering its border countries and population density.
Did they though? Right now UK is sitting at a total of 4.5 million cases, and Germany has 3.6 million. By per capita case count, UK is at #50 globally, and Germany is at #73. That's certainly better, but it isn't _significantly_ better. It's not an order of magnitude better. It's middle of the pack better. And that's you picking and choosing a country. Plenty of European nations did worse as well. So if you were to take a random sample of EU nations, UK is pretty much in the middle.
If you sort this[1] graph by per-capita absolute deaths, you can see the nations ahead of the UK are pretty poor. Compared to France and Germany, the UK has about double the per-capita death rate.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
UK didn't do widespread testing in the first few months. People into hospital were tested, and those figures suggest that there were 3.5 million cases by the end of April 2020, and over 10 million now.
> Which government didn't? I mean, I look around, and nobody really has it figured out.
Plenty of articles on that - e.g. google "which countries handled covid best"
It's just not accurate to say that every country handled it equally badly. Even though the ones that handled it well were not what one would initially expect.
https://twitter.com/_artesean/status/1396463706897272832
Plenty of articles on that - e.g. google "which countries handled covid best"
It's just not accurate to say that every country handled it equally badly. Even though the ones that handled it well were not what one would initially expect.
https://twitter.com/_artesean/status/1396463706897272832
Australia pretty much nailed it.
All they have done is kicked the can.
They can vaccinate but at some point, probably years after the world is back to normal, they will need to reopen and then Covid deaths will occur.
Australia have also been brutal with regards to lockdowns and civil liberties. Citizens literallly cannot leave or enter their own country easily. They still have years of short sharp lockdowns to contend with.
Glad I’m living in the UK rather than Australia and that’s a sentence I didn’t ever see myself writing!
They can vaccinate but at some point, probably years after the world is back to normal, they will need to reopen and then Covid deaths will occur.
Australia have also been brutal with regards to lockdowns and civil liberties. Citizens literallly cannot leave or enter their own country easily. They still have years of short sharp lockdowns to contend with.
Glad I’m living in the UK rather than Australia and that’s a sentence I didn’t ever see myself writing!
Is there a reason Aus/NZ won't be able to vaccinate to the level the UK has so far by next summer?
If they vaccinate, then they will avoid COVID deaths when they reopen. The vaccine completely changes the game from "kicking the can down the road" into "total victory."
If they vaccinate adequately, why would they have Covid deaths anywhere near the same magnitude as the US/UK?
death/cases yes, but they became a "hermit kingdom" in the process.
their attitude re covid put me off from ever considering them as a place where i'd like to spend the rest of my days.
I'm not sure that's fair.
Internally almost everything is open (a few temp local lockdowns happen). Their bars, restaurants, schools and stadiums have been BAU for months.
Externally, it's hard to get in/out. But that's true everywhere right now isn't it?
I'm in the uk, there are about 6 countries where i can travel to right now with the blessings of both places.
I'm much prefer to have spent the last 12m in Aus personally...
Internally almost everything is open (a few temp local lockdowns happen). Their bars, restaurants, schools and stadiums have been BAU for months.
Externally, it's hard to get in/out. But that's true everywhere right now isn't it?
I'm in the uk, there are about 6 countries where i can travel to right now with the blessings of both places.
I'm much prefer to have spent the last 12m in Aus personally...
I think the most valuable thing we can glean from this is the failure of systems. The focus by the BBC has been on transient matters. What will happen to Johnson and Hancock for instance? I think the focus on this is misplaced. If 'lessons are to be learnt', we must focus on systems and their failures too.
Cummings mentioned the the example of PPE logistics. In February/March 2020, he asked what the plan was and an offical replied something along the lines of, "we should get the PPE shipped in a few weeks". Cummings said he was surprised that PPE was being shipped, rather than flown. PPE procurement had always been shipped, so the offical was simply following protocol even if it meant causing more deaths.
Another issue he identified was the scattering of authority. It was not clear who was in charge of pandemic planning. Ministers decided policy, but could not hire and fire civil servants or move people who could effectively solve these sorts of issues to where they would be most useful. He said if Bill Gates were put in charge on 1 March, he would find it a nightmare.
Obviously, this is one person's evidence and we should wait until hearing from more people before forming assigning blame. However, if we are to respond to the next big crisis better, we should look at our systems and not solely focus on the transitory state of politics.
Cummings mentioned the the example of PPE logistics. In February/March 2020, he asked what the plan was and an offical replied something along the lines of, "we should get the PPE shipped in a few weeks". Cummings said he was surprised that PPE was being shipped, rather than flown. PPE procurement had always been shipped, so the offical was simply following protocol even if it meant causing more deaths.
Another issue he identified was the scattering of authority. It was not clear who was in charge of pandemic planning. Ministers decided policy, but could not hire and fire civil servants or move people who could effectively solve these sorts of issues to where they would be most useful. He said if Bill Gates were put in charge on 1 March, he would find it a nightmare.
Obviously, this is one person's evidence and we should wait until hearing from more people before forming assigning blame. However, if we are to respond to the next big crisis better, we should look at our systems and not solely focus on the transitory state of politics.
>I think the most valuable thing we can glean from this is the failure of systems.
Is there a failure of systems? Government bureaucracies are huge with a lot of institutional inertia. They will never be able to move on a dime. And this was a situation where in a matter of weeks or even days, we had to realign not only the entire government bureaucracy but also the rest of the economy. Come on ... we have to give ourselves a little break.
You cited a screw up with PPE logistics. OK. Sure. But there was a shortage of PPE equipment in _every_ country in the world. And we got through it in a matter of weeks. Is that really that bad? I understand you can pick apart individual choices but in the big picture, it's not clear that things would have been different if PPE shortage was curtailed a tiny bit quicker. And yes, it would have been nice to be prepared for something like this, but then again, there are lots of things that can go wrong. Are we really prepared, for example, for a major solar event? And we know it's only a matter of time before that hits.
Is there a failure of systems? Government bureaucracies are huge with a lot of institutional inertia. They will never be able to move on a dime. And this was a situation where in a matter of weeks or even days, we had to realign not only the entire government bureaucracy but also the rest of the economy. Come on ... we have to give ourselves a little break.
You cited a screw up with PPE logistics. OK. Sure. But there was a shortage of PPE equipment in _every_ country in the world. And we got through it in a matter of weeks. Is that really that bad? I understand you can pick apart individual choices but in the big picture, it's not clear that things would have been different if PPE shortage was curtailed a tiny bit quicker. And yes, it would have been nice to be prepared for something like this, but then again, there are lots of things that can go wrong. Are we really prepared, for example, for a major solar event? And we know it's only a matter of time before that hits.
> Another issue he identified was the scattering of authority. It was not clear who was in charge of pandemic planning. Ministers decided policy, but could not hire and fire civil servants or move people who could effectively solve these sorts of issues to where they would be most useful. He said if Bill Gates were put in charge on 1 March, he would find it a nightmare.
It's done very simply in UK, and other countries who share UK's legal system.
A state emergency is declared, and executive fiat starts.
It's absolutely unbelievable that even cadre situation in the field was tied by legal formalities.
UK is a type of a country where you can get half a year no charge detention no questions asked, and they can't fire some nincompoops.
It's done very simply in UK, and other countries who share UK's legal system.
A state emergency is declared, and executive fiat starts.
It's absolutely unbelievable that even cadre situation in the field was tied by legal formalities.
UK is a type of a country where you can get half a year no charge detention no questions asked, and they can't fire some nincompoops.
No kidding. The shocking thing is for him to admit it.
Albeit for reasons of settling a personal score with Mr Johnson.
> testimony from a self-interested narcissist who has weaponised falsehood challenging the record of a self-interested narcissist who has weaponised falsehood.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1397460989277261826
Albeit for reasons of settling a personal score with Mr Johnson.
> testimony from a self-interested narcissist who has weaponised falsehood challenging the record of a self-interested narcissist who has weaponised falsehood.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1397460989277261826
This is a great summary, though I'm not a fan of the emotional commentary around it.
What surprises me is that commenters in this thread seem to expect anything different. In a democracy, the leaders we end up with are necessarily ones that are used to balancing competing interests. Every highly politicized decision making process I've been near has been like this. Leadership will 1) favor delaying to get more information over making fast decisions 2) treat contradictory sources of information as equally valid because validity is hard to judge for them (though the status of the advice-giver plays a big role) 3) try to find a compromise between competing interests instead of strongly benefiting one over the other, for as long as possible. That's not even mentioning the general disempowerment of individual actors in a bureaucracy.
And this is generally a good thing! This is what you get when you optimize your governmental structures to have broad-based support. And yes it has failure modes in extreme scenarios, but the opposite is also true, it prevents extreme responses when they are unwarranted.
In more general terms I'm not sure how reasonable it is to expect a democratic institution, or any institution to find a policy global maximum. This means that policy outcomes should be weighed against a reasonable counterfactual outcome, not the ideal outcome. Given the complexity of the situation, most countries did about as well as can be expected.
What surprises me is that commenters in this thread seem to expect anything different. In a democracy, the leaders we end up with are necessarily ones that are used to balancing competing interests. Every highly politicized decision making process I've been near has been like this. Leadership will 1) favor delaying to get more information over making fast decisions 2) treat contradictory sources of information as equally valid because validity is hard to judge for them (though the status of the advice-giver plays a big role) 3) try to find a compromise between competing interests instead of strongly benefiting one over the other, for as long as possible. That's not even mentioning the general disempowerment of individual actors in a bureaucracy.
And this is generally a good thing! This is what you get when you optimize your governmental structures to have broad-based support. And yes it has failure modes in extreme scenarios, but the opposite is also true, it prevents extreme responses when they are unwarranted.
In more general terms I'm not sure how reasonable it is to expect a democratic institution, or any institution to find a policy global maximum. This means that policy outcomes should be weighed against a reasonable counterfactual outcome, not the ideal outcome. Given the complexity of the situation, most countries did about as well as can be expected.
If you don't live in the UK, it may be a bit difficult to understand just how badly the UK's Conservative Government handled the pandemic up until the vaccine rollout. The level of ineptitude, dishonesty and croynism is simply off the scale.
How they got away with such incompetence remains utterly baffling and deeply depressing. (A largely Conservative-supporting national press probably helped to some degree.)
The number of COVID deaths speaks volumes about the government's record in tackling the pandemic: more than 127,000 people dead.
Back in March 2020, the medical director of National Health Service England, Stephen Powis, said that if the UK was able to keep deaths below 20,000 then "we will have done very well in this epidemic."
How they got away with such incompetence remains utterly baffling and deeply depressing. (A largely Conservative-supporting national press probably helped to some degree.)
The number of COVID deaths speaks volumes about the government's record in tackling the pandemic: more than 127,000 people dead.
Back in March 2020, the medical director of National Health Service England, Stephen Powis, said that if the UK was able to keep deaths below 20,000 then "we will have done very well in this epidemic."
> A largely Conservative-supporting national press probably helped to some degree.
People don't really read newspapers any more. In Jan 2020, newspaper circulation was about 10% of the country [0]. In Jan 2021 this is down about 35% (far fewer people commuting or even going to shops to buy a paper -- the Metro lost 60% of its readers)
The left always complain about the power of the Daily Mail - but it reaches fewer than 1 million people a day. How do you explain the other 67 million people in the UK?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_Unit...
People don't really read newspapers any more. In Jan 2020, newspaper circulation was about 10% of the country [0]. In Jan 2021 this is down about 35% (far fewer people commuting or even going to shops to buy a paper -- the Metro lost 60% of its readers)
The left always complain about the power of the Daily Mail - but it reaches fewer than 1 million people a day. How do you explain the other 67 million people in the UK?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_Unit...
you would then be surprised that it's the same everywhere else.
I don't live in the UK and had no trouble understanding that. The UK and US were both terrible at it in the beginning (Q1 and Q2 of 2020).
Afterwards, those countries did pretty much the same as everyone else and they ramped up vaccinations much faster than other countries, so the later response masks the total incompetence of the initial response.
Afterwards, those countries did pretty much the same as everyone else and they ramped up vaccinations much faster than other countries, so the later response masks the total incompetence of the initial response.
No, the UK was still terrible at it in Q4 2020. it was a grim winter, and actually largely avoidable. Lockdown happened anyway, but late in the day.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55379220
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-12-20/covid-19-millions-in-eng...
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-uk-records-highest-ever-...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55379220
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-12-20/covid-19-millions-in-eng...
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-uk-records-highest-ever-...
Key Points from his evidence:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57254915
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57254915
The government falls short on a lot of things. The problem is systematically annoying.
Deaths in Sweden: 5.7% higher in 2020 vs 2018:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-...
And that's after the lowest deaths in a decade in 2019, leaving a lot of 'dry tinder'.
Same thing in Ukraine, with merely superficial lockdowns, and about a 6% increase in annual deaths.
All of this is basically in line with the aging population. None of these places ran out of hospital capacity.
Governments fell short of dealing with COVID because they embraced politics and fear for something which is basically a once-a-decade flu variant, like Swine Flu or the forgotten flu waves of the 90s, 50s and 60s which lead to the same death spikes as COVID (and given populations were younger and less obese back then, were probably actually more severe).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/525353/sweden-number-of-...
And that's after the lowest deaths in a decade in 2019, leaving a lot of 'dry tinder'.
Same thing in Ukraine, with merely superficial lockdowns, and about a 6% increase in annual deaths.
All of this is basically in line with the aging population. None of these places ran out of hospital capacity.
Governments fell short of dealing with COVID because they embraced politics and fear for something which is basically a once-a-decade flu variant, like Swine Flu or the forgotten flu waves of the 90s, 50s and 60s which lead to the same death spikes as COVID (and given populations were younger and less obese back then, were probably actually more severe).
In April 2020 Sweden had 40% excess deaths. This is compared to the 2015–2019 average.
> None of these places ran out of hospital capacity.
My wife is a hospital consultant in East London, she was working volunteer overnight shifts on Sunday nights as a nurse, back in January - working to turn over ventilated patients and run paperwork about. The hospital had 4 floor filled with Covid patients needing intensive treatment or ventilation.
Patients were being sent over 100 miles to find empty beds.
We didn't run out of hospital capacity. We came this || close to doing so.
> None of these places ran out of hospital capacity.
My wife is a hospital consultant in East London, she was working volunteer overnight shifts on Sunday nights as a nurse, back in January - working to turn over ventilated patients and run paperwork about. The hospital had 4 floor filled with Covid patients needing intensive treatment or ventilation.
Patients were being sent over 100 miles to find empty beds.
We didn't run out of hospital capacity. We came this || close to doing so.
The same thing occurs each season for influenza.
We don't build hospitals to have excess capacity sitting around unused.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-42572116
"Hospital bosses said they had run out of beds as they battle with "very high" rates of flu."
Article from 2018. You can find the same articles from cities all around the world during regular yearly flu seasons.
We don't build hospitals to have excess capacity sitting around unused.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-42572116
"Hospital bosses said they had run out of beds as they battle with "very high" rates of flu."
Article from 2018. You can find the same articles from cities all around the world during regular yearly flu seasons.
What you're saying is technically true, but it's incredibly misleading.
COVID redefined what "running out of hospital beds" in western Europe means. So you can go on looking for articles before 2020, if you ask any professional in a hard hit area if Covid is "the same thing" as a bad season of Influenza they will tell you no.
Here's an example: in 2019 Portugal had around 500 ICU beds in the public hospital network. In February 2021 there were 900 people in ICU in Portugal just for COVID.
COVID redefined what "running out of hospital beds" in western Europe means. So you can go on looking for articles before 2020, if you ask any professional in a hard hit area if Covid is "the same thing" as a bad season of Influenza they will tell you no.
Here's an example: in 2019 Portugal had around 500 ICU beds in the public hospital network. In February 2021 there were 900 people in ICU in Portugal just for COVID.
Its not relevant to look at lockdown countries like Portugal and examine temporary ICU statistics, because it is too difficult to tease out the impacts of COVID vs the impact of lockdown.
The point is - were lockdowns actually useful, or was it all just theatre?
Given that Sweden and Ukraine have lower COVID deaths per capita than lockdown countries, it would suggest that lockdown worsened the situation:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
Portugal pursued measures like limiting opening hours which seem to have no purpose apart from concentrating people into stores at the same time.
The point is - were lockdowns actually useful, or was it all just theatre?
Given that Sweden and Ukraine have lower COVID deaths per capita than lockdown countries, it would suggest that lockdown worsened the situation:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
Portugal pursued measures like limiting opening hours which seem to have no purpose apart from concentrating people into stores at the same time.
Deaths per million of Sweden and it's surrounding countries, from your page:
Sweden 1,399.65
Denmark 431.21
Finland 170.64
Norway 146.23
> Given that Sweden and Ukraine have lower COVID deaths per capita than lockdown countries
That's simply wrong, by your own data.
Sweden 1,399.65
Denmark 431.21
Finland 170.64
Norway 146.23
> Given that Sweden and Ukraine have lower COVID deaths per capita than lockdown countries
That's simply wrong, by your own data.
> and examine temporary ICU statistics, because it is too difficult to tease out the impacts of COVID vs the impact of lockdown.
It's actually quite easy.
If you look at the outbreak in the UK that started in November, you can see cases and hospital admissions rising rapidly before lockdown is imposed. Then in February, you can see cases falling rapidly while lockdown is still imposed.
The cases and hospitalisations are related to Covid - they don't map well onto lockdown. In fact excess deaths became negative for a while a the end of the spike, with lockdown still in effect.
It's actually quite easy.
If you look at the outbreak in the UK that started in November, you can see cases and hospital admissions rising rapidly before lockdown is imposed. Then in February, you can see cases falling rapidly while lockdown is still imposed.
The cases and hospitalisations are related to Covid - they don't map well onto lockdown. In fact excess deaths became negative for a while a the end of the spike, with lockdown still in effect.
There's running out of beds, and then there is running out of ITU beds when you have already stopped elective treatments and converted a large proportion of your general wards to ITU
> None of these places ran out of hospital capacity.
You would know this to be nonsense if you knew almost anyone who works in healthcare.
I know retired health workers who were temporarily re-commissioned to deal with the total lack of staffing capacity.
You would know this to be nonsense if you knew almost anyone who works in healthcare.
I know retired health workers who were temporarily re-commissioned to deal with the total lack of staffing capacity.
Don’t underestimate how old and unhealthy the UK population is. They are at significantly higher risk.
I said this at the start (last year). The UK with its obesity crisis would suffer massively from the pandemic.
Of course we can't criticise the overweight because it hurts feelings, but let's not kid ourselves it's a huge problem.
Of course we can't criticise the overweight because it hurts feelings, but let's not kid ourselves it's a huge problem.
I work with Ukrainians. They reported more than superficial lockdowns (e.g. public transport shut down), multiple times, in Kiev. Also, death count numbers from an event like this are not likely to be stable for several years.
That being said, I recall there were some pretty different mortality rates, by country, early in the pandemic (France, for instance)
I am Ukrainian. There were some superficial lockdowns for a few weeks across 2020. Supermarkets and hardware stores still operated during that time without limits.
People still held private parties and you could attend bars and restaurants in speakeasy mode. I know because I did all of these things, as did many politicians.
The statistics are already available, in Ukrainian:
https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/features-56260505
2020: 616,000 died. 2019: 581,000. 6% increase. This mortality rate is still actually lower than in 2014 - 2010.
People still held private parties and you could attend bars and restaurants in speakeasy mode. I know because I did all of these things, as did many politicians.
The statistics are already available, in Ukrainian:
https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/features-56260505
2020: 616,000 died. 2019: 581,000. 6% increase. This mortality rate is still actually lower than in 2014 - 2010.
Sweden has life expectancy of 82. Ukraine - 71. Most of the deaths happens are in 60+ age group. You can't compare stats like that.
No? He didn't do that? He didn't acknowledge that his personal choices that were completely bananas, with lies stacked on top, in violation of government orders, undermined the response and likely cost lives?
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that this asshole is the hero of his own story.
> He added that "in a well-run entity", the prime minister could have appointed a "sort of dictator" to run the Covid response, with the power to "fire anybody or move anybody".
Oh, and I bet that would be you, wouldn't it? You incompetent narcisistic muppet.