When you thought the situation in Britain couldn’t get any worse – the Buffoon opens his mouth

More on covid pandemic 2020

When you thought the situation in Britain couldn’t get any worse – the Buffoon opens his mouth

If you are unfortunate enough to be living in Britain in 2020 – during the covid-19 pandemic – you are used to waking up hoping you had seen the worse – and then you would see, hear or read the latest cock up of the Buffoon and his gang (and pinch yourself hoping it was all some surreal nightmare).

Every time the present Government is questioned or criticised about its ‘handling’ of the pandemic the stock answer is that we should concentrate on dealing with the crisis in a united manner and that any review of what was, or was not done, will be part of an investigation at some time in the indeterminate future. Obviously the Buffoon and his Government hope that at that time people would have forgotten what a pig’s ear they had made of the situation from the very beginning – a wish that, unfortunately, will probably turn out to be true.

However, a short ‘review’ just short of three months into Britain’s response to the pandemic;

  • the death toll is around 64,000 (as of the end of May) – that being the difference in the average number of deaths in the last five years in the same period and what has happened in 2020 (considered as being the most accurate estimation as many deaths, especially in the early days, were not being put down to covid-19)
  • the ‘world beating’ test and trace programme is an embarrassment (see below)
  • the situation in care homes continues to be dire (see below)
  • most (if not all) policy decisions are taken by the Government in an ad hoc manner surprising those who have to carry out these policies (see below)
  • there’s a ever growing major difference of opinion between the scientific advisors and the politicians (see below)
  • there’s seemingly no strategic plan to get as many children as possible back to school as soon as possible (see below)
  • the prospects for the economy in the coming years is predicted to be the worst in Europe

Fourteen day quarantine for anyone entering the United Kingdom

The plans are announced – and immediately people ask the question – why now?

Robert West, Professor Of Health Psychology, University College London, on Radio 4, World at One, 2nd June, talking about the plans to introduce a 14 day quarantine for all travellers coming into the United Kingdom from 8th June;

‘There is science behind it but of course the science is ambiguous here with regards to exactly what policy you adopt. …

It’s a cautious approach but the science would also support other chunks of measures such as those being adopted by other countries which might involve having more testing of people as they come into the country and other preventative type measures. ….

What’s puzzling a number of people is that this seems a particularly cautious approach for people coming into the country when we’re seeing a relaxing, to some degree against the scientific advice, with the approach we are adopting for the people already here.

It would be fine if the Government were to say …. there are reasons for doing so while other countries are taking a different approach.’

Q. The line ‘we owe it to victims to impose a quarantine’ [Priti Patel]. Is that how you see it?

West laughs. ‘It doesn’t make any sense. [Laughs again, then stutters looking for words to express his reply in the face of such a ludicrous statement.] That’s just a very generalised, emotive argument you could apply to anything.

We owe to the victims to apply appropriate cautious measures across the whole gamut of what we are doing and that includes getting a decent contact, testing, tracing and isolation system in place – which we should have started on a long time ago.

Talking about ‘we owe it to the victims’ is not a particularly helpful contribution.’

Universities opening in September

Julia Buckingham, Vice-Chancellor of Brunel University and President of Universities UK, on what situation students will possibly face at the beginning of the academic year in September 2020, Radio 4, World at One, 2nd June;

‘There are some wonderful examples of digital eduction now, techniques like virtual reality, so I do see this as a really exciting opportunity. If I’m honest it’s something I’ve been wanting to do for a long time and I think our students will actually embrace it.’

The reason for including this quote are twofold. The first is that this use of technology, especially when coupled with the ‘bubble approach’ being discussed at the moment, will change the whole ethos of attending University. If you can do all the work at a distance (which is the case for the majority of the students not involved in hands on practical courses) then why go in the first place.

With the cost of University fees and living costs this is a very expensive way of having a party – which you won’t be able to have because of the ‘bubble approach’ and social distancing. You might as well sign on to a university, go across the world where the sun shines most of the time and living costs are cheap and just pay for a good internet connection.

The second is what follows the phrase ‘if I’m honest’. This is just one example where different organisations and businesses will use the effects of the covid-19 ‘new normal’ to bring in practices they have wanted to introduce but couldn’t due to potential opposition. They will now make it a fait accompli and push the blame on a guiltless virus. It won’t be able to say that it wasn’t its idea.

To make the experience of being a students totally miserable (as well as expensive) it is being suggested they might have to stay in ‘protective bubble’.

Already universities are nervous – especially those which are over dependent upon foreign students, even more so those which have been cultivating the very lucrative Asian, mainly, Chinese ‘market’ – education is more of a business now and education seems to be a bit of a sideline. But even domestic students are thinking about their future and deferrals are certainly being considered by many. What to do if they don’t go to University might be what swings it – a ‘gap year’ travelling, finding a job for a year might not be viable alternatives.

The Buffoon and his Government inept and incompetent? – of course not

The Buffoon at Prime Minister’s Question Time in the Houses of Parliament, 3rd June, in response to a challenge on the ineptitude and incompetence of his Government’s approach to the covid-19 pandemic;

‘I really do not see the purpose of these endless attacks on public trust and confidence. What we’re trying to do is to …. [communicate] clear messages about how to defeat this virus.

Test and trace is a vital tool in our armoury and, contrary to what he [Starmer, leader of the Labour Party] says, actually we did, by the end of May [he meant April] get up to 100,000 [although that figure is generally accepted to have been ‘massaged’] tests a day and we got to 200,00 by the beginning of this month [another figure that has been extensively challenged].

That was an astonishing achievement, not by government but by tens of thousands of people working to support government. [Interesting how here the Buffoon turns a question of the truth of what Ministers have said and claims it as an attack on people carrying out the tests and the tracing. Also how those people are doing the job ‘to support the Government’ – as if they have faith in what it is doing.]

I think he [Starmer] should pay tribute to them and what they’ve achieved. [Here the Buffoon reiterates his ‘support’ for those who are being ‘questioned’ in the validity of the figures.]’

And this is the problem (one of many) of Parliamentary so-called ‘Democracy’. These characters aren’t concerned about dealing with the issues of the day, they are more concerned with playing to the gallery of their supporters. In Britain it’s played like a Public (in Britain that means private) school debating society. It’s not what is said but how it is said in order to win support – the solution to the problem doesn’t come into it.

If you can stomach it you can see a performance what is called PMQs (Prime Minister’s Questions) of the 10th June.

The mandatory use of face masks on public transport

The World Health Organisation doesn’t do itself any favour when faced by the cretins such a Trump. Now, seven, eight or even nine months (depending upon who you listen to about the actual first appearance of the virus) they reverse their policy on the general population wearing masks whenever they might have close contact with others outside of their immediate circle.

Devi Lalita Sridhar, Professor and Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh, Radio 4, World at One, 5th June;

‘There’s emerging evidence [although no mention of what or from where] about the positive impact that mask usage can have in reducing transmissions. … it would have been nice to have had this done earlier.

I agree with the British Medical Association that the latest proposals don’t go far enough. What we need to be seeing is mandatory masks whenever distancing is not possible. This means in shops, on public transport, in work places, airports, train station. This is a first step but there’s a long way to go.’

Q. Has mask wearing worked elsewhere?

‘It’s difficult to say. A lot of countries introduced a package of measures at the same time. We also need to look at a package of measures, we need to look at the cumulative effect that they can have together, even if each alone has a weak evidence base.’

This is a matter that’s been really badly handled in Britain by both the politicians and the so-called ‘scientific experts’. Also the introduction of the mandatory use late (as is that of the 14 day quarantine for those entering the country) doesn’t help to inspire confidence.

The pros and cons as I understand it;

Pros.

If someone is infected with the virus, and especially if they are not aware of it, the wearing of a mask will capture some, but not all, of the virus if they were to cough or sneeze – or even talk to someone close to them. The figure varies widely, down to below 50% by some estimates, but that would still make for a reasonable lowering of risk. And that’s it.

Cons.

The wearing of a mask will not prevent the virus from infecting you if someone coughs or sneezes in the vicinity. The problem here is that most people believe it will protect them. That’s why you see people alone in vehicles wearing a mask. And the majority who wear them when they are outside, and alone, are not doing it in an effort to not spread the infection they don’t know they have on to others. It’s fear which drives this wearing of masks and creates a false sense of security, which itself can cause problems.

The biggest ‘con’ that was being ‘promoted’ weeks ago was the fact that if someone is infected and they are breathing into a mask, that mask will accumulate millions of spores of the virus. Any mask, especially in the heat of summer, will soon get sopping wet and an infected person (who doesn’t know they are infected) is supposed to take that mask off in a controlled manner, dispose of it safely (or bag it if it is to be used more than once), wash their hands with sanitiser without touching any surface at all, including their own face.

That’s not going to happen.

To actually breathe and feel comfortable people will be constantly touching the mask and – if infected – then spreading the virus on anything they touch. It is just not possible to go through any daily routine without touching anything, including the face which we touch hundreds of times a day due to evolution.

For those who are good with the sewing needle – or were brought up on Blue Peter – here’s what you should do to prepare for the 15th June.

The British Medical Association has asked for the wearing of masks to be extended beyond public transport to any potential contact between individuals – and that they should be provided free. However, although there are plenty of hints at how to make your own masks those to buy are in relatively short supply – and/or expensive. Other countries where masks wearing is mandatory supply them and have controlled the price. For example, to just less than a Euro each in Spain and they have even gone down in price in Holland, where a pack of ten was €10 but are now selling (in normal supermarkets) at less than €7.

A slightly different take on ‘mask wearing’ and as an example of the Buffoon and his Government’s inability to deal properly with those who have to implement their policies – seemingly thought of after cigars and brandy (copious amounts of) they decided that everyone that enters a NHS facility (either workers or visitors) should have to wear a mask. However, the Government ‘forgot’ to consult with the NHS trusts – those responsible for enforcing such a policy.

Schools – when or even if – they open

Mary Bousted, Joint General Secretary of the National Education Union, Radio 4, World at One, 8th June;

Q. What is different about September that will allow whole schools to open?

‘The joy must really be out about whole schools being able to open in September. It all depends where we are with the coronavirus at that point; whether the R rate is down, whether the number of cases is low enough and whether we’re confident that schools can operate. If you’ve got a whole school in there’s no way you can have social distancing. There’s much that is dependent on the spread of the virus, how well it’s controlled.’

Q. Isn’t there a point when certain children are more at risk not going to school than doing so?

‘Disadvantaged children, perhaps should be the priority. I was surprised when the Prime Minister said that first year groups should go back first. My union would have said that disadvantaged children should go back first because, you’re right, they need school the most, they benefit from school the most and they suffer when they can’t go to school. [If such a policy were adopted that would make the children feel good, wouldn’t it? There’s the whole rejects from society in one place at the same time. In a culture where bullying is rife surely such stigmatisation is the last thing that’s needed?]

We do know that in secondary schools there is a focus on disadvantaged children and vulnerable children being in school but the problem we’re got is that many of the families are extremely concerned. [For example] many Bangladeshi families won’t send their children back to school as they live in multi-generational households and they’re afraid they’ll bring the virus home.’

Anne Longfield, Children’s Commissioner for England, on the debacle and confusion around if/when/who on schools re-opening in 2020, on 9th June;

She accused ministers of ‘failing to prioritise schools and lacking the necessary will and ingenuity to overcome the difficulties that are involved in social distancing’. She also found the ‘delayed return deeply worrying’ and it was ‘a disruption not seen since World War Two’. Further that ‘a decade of catching up on the education gap may well be lost’.

Andrew Snape, Professor in General Paediatrics and Vaccinology, Radio 4, World at One, 9th June;

Q. Children don’t seem to be badly effected by the virus. Is that correct?

‘That’s right, as a paediatrician that’s really important. Children don’t seem to get sick from covid-19. There is a small number of cases of post-covid inflammatory syndrome but in the overall picture the risk to individual children is very small.’

Q. Do they spread it to adult?

‘Although children can carry the virus ….. perhaps 1 in 200 children, but they seem not to be the super-spreaders that they are for influenza. Children are fantastic at spreading influenza … but that’s not the case for covid-19. … It’s much more common that adults bring the virus into the household.’

Q. Are you confident to send your children back to school?

‘Yes, I’m confident of sending my children back to school. The risk as an individual would be very low. The bigger question is ‘does my children’s school re-opening increase the spread through the community?’ because it’s not just the children at school. It’s the teachers who are mixing in the staff room, it’s the parents mixing at the school gate and bringing their children to school. So there’s all the other elements that need to be very carefully looked at and managed to avoid the actual opening of the school creating a spread of the virus through the community.’

Q. How important is mitigation?

‘It’s really important. There’s not a lot of evidence that children are spreading it. … A lot of effort would need to go into ensuring there’s not a lot of mixing of parents and the teachers, to try and minimise their social interactions might even be more important in reducing the spread.’

David Blunkett, former Education Secretary in a Labour Government, Radio 4, World at One, 9th June;

Q. What’s the problem about schools not going back as was previously announced?

‘To be honest I think it’s a lack of will, it’s a lack of ‘can do’, it’s a failure to do what we’ve already done with the health service and the economy, which is to say ‘there are challenges, there are real problems but we are going, as a nation, to actually seek to overcome them’. It’s easier for Scotland, they go back much earlier in the summer anyway but for England and Wales it’s a different matter.

Why is it that other countries, not just in Europe but across the world, can have the ambition to get their children, in all kinds of creative ways, back into school and we can’t?

I can only conclude that the Government are losing the plot.’

Q. You are saying it’s a lack of will on the part of the Government, not that it’s the parents taking a precautionary approach?

‘Well, it’s a Catch 22. the less confident the Government is, the less clear they are about what steps they’ll take themselves to help those local authorities and education trusts to manage this transition, the more parents get worried,

This is an endeavour for all of us to work together. We have 600,000 people taken on as volunteers nationally to help with vulnerable people at home. We’ve got supply teachers who are not being paid anything. We’ve got excellent teachers doing their utmost to work with children at home.

We can take up the suggestion … of using other buildings, we can do what the Americans do … which is to close roads around schools to make space available. All of this could be done with a bit of thinking creatively and everyone working together.

Q. However much space you give them aren’t children going to break the 2m or 1m rules? And it’s six months, it’s not the end of the world. What price do you think will come with this?

‘If it’s not the end of the world why do we have the education systems we have here and in the rest of the world?

I spoke to someone who said her nephew, who is in his mid-teens, spends everyday until 12.30 in bed. That won’t be because teachers aren’t trying or parents aren’t actually encouraging it will be because a kind of lethargy comes out in teenagers if they don’t have a structure and they don’t have encouragement. … I just know that we’ve got to do this.

If we can set up the Nightingale hospitals in the time we did why on earth can’t we invest in the future of out children?

Q. Where does the initiative need to come from?

‘The Government should say to local authorities and education trusts – get together, come up with a plan which includes mentoring and recovery programmes in certain schools as well as staggered hours and new premises. Come up with that plan and we, as a nation, will fund it. The funding from the middle of June through into August, we’ll pick it up again in September if the scientific advice is that we can’t actually go back to complete normality. We’ll reduce the distancing for schools to a metre – which is being done across the rest of Europe and is the advice of the WHO – and above all we’ll say to people at local level use your initiative, have confidence to develop programmes locally.

Of course, take the advice of the directors of public health at local level but try and do it in a very positive way so that you can deal with any spikes, you can be confident there’s no infections at the present time … and then we can ensure that we not only give the confidence to parents and to teachers and children but we also allow those parents to go back to their jobs where they will be contributing to the recovery of our economy.’

Was the lock down worth it – and effective?

Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford, Radio 4, World at One, 9th June;

Q. Would you have argued for ‘herd immunity’ all along?

‘Yes, I would have said that but with the proviso that we put as much money as possible – and to make up for what hasn’t happened over the last 30 years – to support the vulnerable sectors of the population.

I think at that point we had enough information to know that there were certain sectors of the population that were particularly vulnerable and that we needed to protect them – and the word ‘protect’ carries with it all sorts of implications – but essentially it seemed to be that there was a real gap in the resources available to achieve that.

Let’s now try and divert as many of these resources as possible to protect the vulnerable population and to reduce their risk. And the way to reduce this risk to the vulnerable population – as we have done unwittingly in many cases with the pathogens that do kill us … is by having enough immunity ourselves such that the risk posed to the vulnerable population is low.’

Q. So the majority of the population carry on as normal and catch the virus and build up ‘herd immunity’?

‘That’s how we have traditionally dealt with the pathogens that do at the moment kill the elderly and the vulnerable.

It’s a terrible thing that that happens but it happens.

I guess we’ve made the decision that we need to balance out that problem against the problem of completely shutting down the economy or compromising out social interactions to the point of farce.’

Q. Has the lock down been a farce?

‘We are trying to wriggle out of this situation in a way that is quite farcical. We come up with rules that are arbitrary, to my mind.’

Q. The idea would be to change the strategy with the vulnerable staying indoors?

First of all we need to go out there and make a proper map of what their risk is. The risk to the elderly and frail is not just contingent upon how elderly or frail they are but how immune the rest of the population surrounding them is. We need to go out and test, to the best of out abilities, knowing now that some people are not going to register positive on these tests simply because they happen to be entirely resistant to the disease.

We need some clever statisticians and people who are disinterested in promoting any kind of sense of what they think is going on, to make proper, clear, best assessments about what the risks are to the vulnerable in every part of the country.

Just in the UK there is a huge variation in who has been exposed given the locality. There’s enormous heterogeneity and homogenising this data just to fit certain precepts or preconceptions is not helpful.

What we need to do is go out there, look at who’s been exposed in different regions and come up with a strategy, put public money into supporting the people who are vulnerable given the risks that they face. … We need to make sensible decisions about how to protect people.’

Q. Should we be relaxed about the R number, lift the lock down quickly and not be phased by the idea of a second wave?

‘There will be a resurgence of this like any other respiratory pathogen in the winter and we need to prepare for that.’

Q. We hear there’s some regret in Sweden due to the death toll. Would that not have happened here if we didn’t have lock down?

‘I think it’s unfortunate that people are focussing on that point. … What was said was that they could have done better to protect the care homes and indeed that’s what we should have done.

It’s unfortunate people are jumping on that [failing in Sweden] to say they should have had a lock down earlier.

What I don’t understand about the lock down is what is the exit strategy from it anyway?’

Q. Would you lift it as quickly as possible?

‘Yes, right now, absolutely.’

Q. Do you think the disease arose earlier in China than was suggested?

‘Absolutely, yes,’

Q. When did you think it appeared?

‘… In any normal system by the time it takes for deaths from the disease [to be recorded] it’s been around for at least a month.’

Q. So October rather than November?

‘Yes, something like that.’

Related to this idea is the uncertainty of how many people might, for whatever reason, already be (or have always been) resistant to covid-19.

Care Homes

This issue will run and run. This sector was in a dire state prior to covid-19 and the political philosophy and attitude of the Tories – which is to step back from any social welfare that benefits the general population – won’t just evaporate. And even when they make a big splash about giving to the sector it’s more giving with one hand and taking with the other.

More than 25,000 patients discharged to care homes in crucial 30 days before routine testing.

Even thought he care homes have become the epicentre of the disease in Britain they are still not getting the priority they need. And the stupidity of the Government is demonstrated by the fact that they are seemingly incapable of avoiding criticism by making sure care homes are at the top of the list for any developments in the battle against the virus. Instead of giving the impression they see that mistakes were made in the past (and will do their best to do better in the future) they continue to try to score political points – even when the facts stand in opposition. This was the case about testing kits – and the difference between being delivered and used. (Note how Hancock gets testy when challenged in the video clip.)

Another view on Hancock and numbers.

Test, track, trace – and isolate

Only 4 in 10 Covid-19 patients contacted at start of government’s ‘test and trace’ scheme.

The people of Britain were promised a ‘world beating’ test and tracing system. However, in the first days of June there was nothing for many of the staff employed to do this had a great deal to do.

Matt Hancock under fire over incomprehensible testing targets.

Sir David Norgrove, chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, sent a letter to Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, on 2nd June where he stated that the figures being presented were ‘still far from complete and comprehensible’ and that many of the ‘key numbers make little sense’. This was partly in response to the Government’s ‘massaging’ of their testing ‘target’ numbers, mainly the 100,000 by the end of April and the 200,000 by the end of May – both of which were ‘met’ but with dubious counting.

But the ‘world beating’ system is not going to be with us soon. The autumn might be more likely.

The privacy issue also keeps on running.

Open Rights Group to challenge UK over test and trace data retention.

This might be academic. We still don’t know exactly when the magic app will be in general use.

And which app? There’s now the possibility that the NHSX will ditch their own, centralised app and revert to the ‘off the shelf’ system developed by Apple and Google and which is being used in other countries.

Watch this space.

For an interesting view on the ‘complications’ surrounding tests and how the figures we are told about and reality are not always in line listen to the first 15 minutes or so of the BBC Radio 4 programme, ‘More or Less‘ on Friday, 5th June.

Food Banks

The obscenity gets even worse.

The stories behind the statistics.

Two metres – or less

This has now become part of the debate.

Two-metre rule halves chances of catching coronavirus.

Although there is a push to reduce the social distancing rules – especially as in Britain the 2 metre rule is out of kilter with many other countries.

How did covid-19 land on the sceptred isle?

Through the ability of scientists to break down the genetic sequence of the virus – and with the sharing of information between countries of their particular outbreaks – it’s possible for scientists to identify from which part of the world those in Britain contracted the disease – normally by close contact from someone infected from those countries. And that happened on more than 1,300 occasions.

That puts the idea of instituting a quarantine for visitors to the UK from 8th June into context – stable doors and bolting horses come to mind.

And for the xenophobes the majority of those cases came from two countries – France and Spain. That shouldn’t come as any surprise as with the explosion in recent years of air travel with the budget airlines those are the two most popular countries for British travellers – and the UK for the French and Spanish

Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus

It has long been argued that it’s the asymptomatic individuals that were the biggest spreaders of the coronavirus – not out of Mary Mallon fear and ignorance – but because they don’t know they are infected. That seemed to be challenged somewhat by a statement from Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s technical lead for Covid-19. However, there was later some ‘clarification’ that she was arguing for emphasis to be placed on tracing contacts with anyone who was proven to have had the disease. But I still slightly confused.

Has the Dominic Cummins affair gone away?

Perhaps not. Reminiscent of Al Capone being imprisoned for tax evasion (and not the countless murders for which he was certainly responsible) Cummins – or his family – might have broken local government planning regulations when a farm building was converted for residential use. Haven’t heard any more of this so don’t know if it is just bubbling under the surface.

And as neither Cummins not the Buffoon are prepared to do the ‘right thing’ it is being left to private individuals to make the rich and powerful abide by the same rules that the majority of the population are expected to do with a private legal case being progressed to get the prosecution service to take the matter seriously.

Risk of getting severe case of covid-19

To the conditions that have become recognised as presenting a higher risk in the present pandemic (older than 70, being male, from a BAME community, suffering from ‘underlying health conditions’, diabetes, dementia/Alzheimer’s) can now be added another – baldness.

What we might learn to face the next pandemic more efficiently

The virus has been around long enough now – with hundreds of thousands of scientists trying to learn as much as possible about all of its hidden characteristics – for a fuller picture to be constructed which might make the next pandemic less traumatic.

Should the lock down had happened earlier?

Forgetting for the moment whether the lock down should have happened at all (see the section above arguing it wasn’t the right tactic if other provisions had been in place) there are scientists who are now arguing it was imposed too late – by about a week.

On Sunday 7th June, Professor John Edmunds, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and a member of Sage, told the BBC ‘We should have gone into lock down earlier’ and that by not doing so it ‘has cost a lot of lives’.

The response from Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary was ‘There’s a broad range on Sage of scientific opinion and we were guided by the science, which means guided by the balance of that opinion’.

I suppose we would have a better idea of what the ‘scientific advice’ was if the Government were to publish any of their reports in a timely fashion. Even though calls for the publication of, at least, summaries to these reports being published more or less at the same time as the decisions upon which they are ‘based’ have been made for months we seem to be no closer to a situation of openness.

On the 10th June, Neil Ferguson (remember him? He was one of the ‘naughty’ boys and girls who broke their own rules but at least had the good grace to fall on their own swords – unlike Dominic Cummins) weighed into the ‘controversy’.

At a meeting (virtual) of the Commons Science and Technology Committee he said ‘We knew the epidemic was doubling every three to four days before lock down interventions were introduced. … ‘So had we introduced lock down measures a week earlier, we would have reduced the final death toll by at least a half.’

Whilst not openly agreeing with this one of the other top scientific advisers, Professor Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, said he had a long list of regrets – the most important being the stopping of the testing regime.

The Buffoon, on the other hand, whipped out a straw boater and cane and gave a rendition of Edith Piaf’s ‘Non, je ne regrette rien’.

More on covid pandemic 2020

Now into the third month of lock down – confusion remains in Britain

More on covid pandemic 2020

Now into the third month of lock down – confusion remains in Britain

Most people were waiting for the easing of the lock down but when it was announced it came with the confusion and questions we have become used to from the Buffoon and his gang.

Testing, track and trace

A couple of differences of the NHSX app (now being ‘piloted’ on the Isle of Wight) from that produced by Apple/Google (and which is being used in many other countries) is that in the UK version people report their symptoms BEFORE a test whilst elsewhere the reporting comes AFTER a test. Also the Apple/Google version actually helps Bluetooth (the way the Smartphones communicate with each other) work better. But the NHSX is not free of the ‘tech giants’ – it needs their permission to work at all – therefore the tech companies remain the ‘gatekeepers’ of any app.

From the beginning one of the arguments given by States to encourage use was that it was voluntary, that no one would be forced to download and activate it. That’s becoming less of a case as some app will almost certainly play a part of any movement of people between countries. This is already being used in Honk Kong for any international arrival and some version will almost certainly be obligatory in many other copy cat countries – even before it has been proven that these apps are actually any use. Just helps to keep a track on people’s movements.

The rocky road of the NHSX app

The pilot has gone very quiet in the last few days – after the fanfare of its release and the ‘overwhelming’ take up.

By now plans should have been in place to extend the pilot to other parts of Britain, although this has now been delayed – until when nobody is saying.

And needless to say we are still no closer to a resolution of the matter of privacy – presumably the Government hopes that if they say nothing for long enough people will get bored with asking the question. That’s also one of the things unlikely to happen. Security concerns continue with fears that it allows an opening to hackers.

Not only is the roll out of the unproven app been delayed so has the contact tracing. The problem, at least in England, is that there is no strategy which doesn’t rely almost entirely on the app’s information. By now this should all have been up and running – if we had listened to Government promises – but by their own admission the contact tracing won’t be up an running before some time in June. And don’t talk about the figures, or the actual people involved. That also seems to change as often as the British weather.

The latest (20th May) ‘information’ is that there will be 25,000 tracers working from 1st June (world-beating’ according to the fantasist Buffoon). I have no doubt those numbers will be reached (as did the 100,000 tests on April 30th – but few days since) and work will begin on that day but of what use is another matter. One issue that has to be resolved before this contact tracing can be effective is to increase the speed at which results are obtained. It currently takes 4/5 days to get a result – that’s far too slow to make the isolation part of the concept useful.

The ‘Norwich Experiment’ – tacking and tracing

Neil Hall, Earlham Institute, Norwich, on a project to test and monitor the whole population of Norwich; Radio 4, World at One, May 15th;

‘The major problem with this virus, and the reason it’s been so difficult to contain, is that it transmits from people who are asymptomatic, before they get ill, or in some cases, from people who don’t get badly ill at all.

That means if you are only testing for the virus from people who are presenting at a doctor’s or a hospital or even if you’re contact tracing you are always playing catch up with the virus. You’re always a step behind. The idea of mass community testing is that you identify those asymptomatic cases before they become ill or before they are identified in a chain through contact tracing.’

Q. You want Norwich to be a city in which that is done?

‘The size of Norwich is about right, 140,000 people, challenging but doable. Also Norwich has one of the highest proportion of molecular biologists per head of population with government funded institutes and a research hospital, etc., in the city.’

Q. How do you test everybody?

‘The idea we’ve been working on is people would be sent a testing kit to their house. That might involve some self-swabbing but research has shown that simple saliva tests are pretty accurate. The kit is bar coded with peoples’ details and then sent back depending upon the logistics being discussed. People would be informed if they had a positive test and would have to self-isolate.’

Q. How far is the push to make it happen? Is the Government on board?

‘There are a lot of partners involved but no funding from National Government. The national government strategy at the moment is putting its weight behind testing of individuals who are sick or in high risk environments.

Mass community testing will also provide a huge amount of information about how the virus is spreading in the community and that will inform government policy nationally. If we know, for example, how asymptomatic cases are in transmission, how important public transport is, how important work place is or households are in the replication of the virus then the government will know when it can relax restrictions and when it has to reinforce them.’

The Track-Trace-Isolate (TTI) strategy in Scotland

Jason Leitch, Clinical Director, Scotland on extension of the covid-19 symptoms (to include taste and smell) and contact tracing in Scotland, Radio 4, World at One, 18th May;

Q. Why has the list of symptoms changed?

‘Science changes all the time. The WHO (World Health Organisation) has a long list of symptoms for covid-19 none of which are, unfortunately, very specific. So you have to cast a net as wide as you can to detect covid-19 but no tos wide you capture the whole population. The evidence has increased on the loss of taste and smell so this has been now, across the four countries of the UK, been added to the list.

We’ve always wanted those with symptoms to self-isolate. We don’t do this with other infections so we have created a fear in society. We don’t want to put 60 million in isolation so we have to be balanced.’

Q. Is it important to get the contract tracing implemented before easing the lock down in Scotland?

‘It’s a kind of parallel process. The WHO says there are six measures you have to have in place before thinking about any dramatic changes to your lock down.

The first is to suppress the virus. The second is a reliable test, trace and isolate system. We [in Scotland] have added an S to our TTI, which is Support.

People underestimate the level of support some need in order to self-isolate – not everybody lives in an environment where a 14 day isolation, although annoying, won’t be that restricting. So we need to think about the support people might need to do that.’

Q. Do you have enough tracers to do that?

‘Tracing exists already across Europe for sexually transmitted diseases etc., so the public health community are very used to contact tracing. We’ve decided to organise this in Scotland around the 14 regions and we are using staff from various sectors to fulfil the need. We’re aiming for 2,000 by the end of the month.’

Q. Why no app?

‘Not no app, considering the app. A digital solution to help with contract tracing and we’re beginning to test in three of our Health Boards with an app really as a boost for the contact tracer to help them along. Contact tracers are detectives, they are used to doing that, their training is about who you were with, where were you, it’s quite an elaborate interview.

The NHSX app is still in development. We need to know about the privacy of it. When we’re reassured about those three things then we’ll happily embrace it. We don’t need it, we’ll have contract tracing without it but if we feel it adds a layer of information, a layer of data then we will, of course, use it if it is safe to do so.’

‘Easing’ the lock down – how will people respond?

Professor Robert Dingwall, School of Social Science, Nottingham Trent University, member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threat Advisory Group (NERVTAG), Radio 4, World at One, 18th May, on how people will react to the easing of the lock down;

Q. There are some people terrified of opening their front doors again. What will happen when people start to go out more?

‘The Government campaign to get us all to stay at home has probably been more effective than they would have wanted it to be in terms of raising the level of anxiety among the population. Surveys show we are easily the most anxious country in Europe about the impact of the virus. In the news coverage there’s been this relentless drum beat of death that’s rather overshadowed the fact that most people (80%) won’t need to go anywhere near a hospital and virtually all those that do will come out again in one piece.’

Q. Was that due to the Government message or the sense of community in protecting the NHS?

‘It’s probably the way the Government has gone about it. It’s also the attraction of kinds of stories for the media. Deaths are full of human interest and there are lots of opportunities for ‘intrepid reporters’. It’s a combination of things. The coronavirus has been overlayed on a number of pre-existing tensions and conflicts. We were a fairly divided society to start with. This hasn’t exactly helped.’

Q. What do you think will make a difference?

‘We might see quite a period of tension and possibly some micro-aggression between people who are more or less risk averse, for example visually impaired people who are unable to maintain social distancing rules are already being abused. Conflicts about masks, what two metres looks like and whether two metres is relevant at all. Those things are going to run for quite a while.’

Q. We were told schools had to shut. What has changed to make them safe now?

‘One thing that has certainly changed is out understanding of the science around children and the transmission of infection. With influenza children are clearly super-spreaders – although we never close schools over the winter because of this. What we now understand [with covid] is that children get a relatively mild form of the disease and they certainly don’t transmit it any more than adults. And teachers are no more at risk in school than going about everyday business in the community.’

The Blame Game

In one of the early post on covid-19 I suggested that having the scientists at the regular press conferences was to have a ready scapegoat if things went pear shaped. As the country entered the third month of the lock down – although now with certain caveats – the accusations started to fly around.

Jeremy Hunt, one time Tory Health Minister, now Chair of the House of Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee, on 19th May;

‘… some of the decisions, notably on testing, represent some of the biggest failures of scientific advice to ministers in out life time.’

Therese Coffey, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, when asked why community testing was ended on 12th March, in a testy reply on 19th May;

‘If the science was wrong I’m not surprised people think we then made the wrong decision.’

The issue can be clarified very easily here. Advice does not equate to decision. The only way to know the facts is for the Government to publish all the documents at the time. The longer this takes (as they will come out at some time in the future) the more it looks like the Government has something to hide.

The Nationalists and Covid-19

I haven’t really quoted extensively from politicians in previous posts but am doing so here with a contribution from Gordon Brown, at one time Labour Prime Minister, who dislikes the Scottish Nationalists as much as I do, Radio 4, World at One, 19th May, on how the pandemic has been approached in the ‘devolved’ Scotland;

‘Half of the deaths in Scotland are in care homes. It’s tragic that even today not all care home residents and workers have been tested. It’s a great failure of public policy to have known about this problem for weeks, to have known that the one way that we could find out whether people are at risk is testing early and testing routinely and not being able to bring in a system as the capacity was simply not good enough. Less than 3% of people have been tested so if we are going to avoid a second wave we’ve got to act urgently to have not just mass testing but routine testing.

We are not talking about thousands of tests a day but hundreds of thousands per day. If we are trying to ease the lock down then we have got to give people reassurances, we’ve got to prevent a second wave, we’ve got to get the R figure down.

With testing [on the return of schools] you can guarantee to people that they can be assured that those who have got this disease are not going to be passing it on. Where are the hundreds of thousands of tests? There’re clearly not here. The contact tracing is not yet working and therefore the strategy which was supposed to be to test, to trace and isolate cannot be working in full. And that was the basis of the Government’s decision to end the lock down and to end it gradually.

In Government you’ve got to make decisions on your priorities and then you’ve got to act of them quickly. Since March 12th when it was decided to give up testing in the communities there has been an absolute failure to recognise that if we are going to end the lock down there were certain things that we had got to have put in place. If you can’t say ‘get vaccinated’ you should be saying ‘get tested’ and you should make it possible for people to get tested.

Q. Do you fear for the Union [that’s the United kingdom] when you see different nations going their own way?

‘We were bound to have differences of approach to issue like schooling when you have different systems in schooling. What the real problem is is the lack of co-operation between the different parts of the Union and the lack of common purpose. The desire to be seen as separate for the sake of being separate is the problem and over time we have got to recognise that we’ll benefit and achieve more by working together than isolating yourself and making a virtue of being apart.’

All in this together?

As with the recovery from economic crash of 2008 (caused by the reckless gambling and rush for easy money by the financial institutions) so in the battle against covid-19, we are supposed to be all in this together, a common fight against a common enemy who knows no barriers such as wealth. The words were empty in 2008 and are as worthless in the present pandemic. There’s one law for the rich and one for the poor.

On the 17th May it was reported that the author Neil Gaiman travelled all the way from New Zealand to the Isle of Skye in Scotland.

A number of issues are raised here;

  • why was he allowed to leave New Zealand in the first place? The country is making a big issue about how well it has managed the pandemic locally, why don’t they help other countries enforce their travel restrictions?
  • why was he allowed to transit the United States?
  • why wasn’t he questioned when he arrived in London? There are so few travellers now surely just so they don’t get bored Border Officials must ask the reasons for people travelling to the country – especially as there has been so much fuss recently about why a quarantine is being talked about in the future but not in the past – don’t these immigration officials have any idea what is being discussed in the country?
  • why are the rich so arrogant that they think they can boast about their activities on Twitter – even when most of the people who would read such social media messages wouldn’t be able to do what he did – another rhetorical question, the rich do what they do because they can.
  • why do the police bother to interview him when they know they are not going to do anything anyway. And even if they do take ‘action’ what’s a £100 fine to the rich?
  • this coming Bank Holiday in Britain there will probably be thousands of people who will be breaking the rules. There will be big coverage of this in the media with politicians (and a number of ‘key workers’) making moral judgements about such ‘thoughtlessness’. But why should they abide by the rules when all you need to flaunt them is money. If the State was serious about ‘we’re all in this together’ they would make an example of the prick Gaiman – but that’s not going to happen.

Travel on public transport

‘Coronavirus (COVID-19): safer travel guidance for passengers’ is the heading of the official guidance published by the Tory Government on 12 May 2020.

This is like something out of the 1940s where those in power regularly talked down to the vast majority of the population. They might argue that its design, and wording, is in an age of hyperlinks but it just reads as if they are addressing small children where repetition of the same phrases is the only way to get people to learn.

It’s been estimated that to maintain social-distancing on public transport it would not be able to operate at more than 15% capacity, some argue even less. That’s not sustainable for any real length of time. For the last seven or eight weeks buses nationally have been running at a much lower capacity – but this is all being heavily subsidised by the Government. If the money can be found during the covid-19 pandemic why wasn’t it there in the past when the public transport system was being run down as it ‘wasn’t financially viable’? These Tory bastards have got a lot to answer for – as are the people who accepted their lies over the years.

On 13th May, the first day of the limited return to work, the ASLEF union complained, on behalf of their drivers on the London Underground, that there were too many passengers. I don’t really understand what they are thinking about. At some time in the future (next week, next month, next year – but by then there’ll be no London Underground) the transport system has to get back to some sort of normality.

Especially in London. There are, on a normal day, 4 million Tube journeys and 6 million bus journeys. If, soon, Transport for London is not able to get the numbers back to that sort of level you might as well abandon the capital. We have heard for years about the social cleansing when it comes to housing in London. The people who keep the capital working (those in mostly poorly paid jobs with awful conditions – night work or getting up a the crack of dawn) don’t live closer than many miles from the centre. They depend totally upon public transport and a fatuous suggestion to walk or go by bike shows a total lack of understanding of how major cities, especially London, function.

Also if you consider how much London (as do many other cities in Britain) depends upon tourism then you will need the transport system up and running, with full capacity, if there is any plan to get London back to anywhere near what it was pre-March 2020.

Neither is the idea of walk, cycle or use you own car really feasible in most of the country. After years of being encouraged to leave their cars at home people are now being encouraged to drive to work. Congestion, air and noise pollution will go through the roof.

So instead of complaining that their members are at risk the union has to do, what the rest of the country has to do, and that’s come up with ways to protect people if they are perceived to be at risk, so they can do their job. The virus will not go away. We can either close down until there’s an effective vaccine or live with it.

All indications, from the very beginning, is that the virus is particularly dangerous for a certain section of society (even though, from time to time others might also get a bad, and even lethal infection). But that happens with any virus, even the common cold or the flu.

Even the Department of Transport understands you can’t have a public transport system and maintain ‘social-distancing’. Public Transport without ‘social distancing’ is called a taxi or a chauffeur driven car.

After a couple of months of trying to instil fear in the population to get them to do what they want the Government has now got to come up with a strategy to get public transport back to running as it should do – together with the virus. It has to happen some time – and sooner rather than later – so why not now?

Following complaints from transport workers and other ‘key-worker commuters’ about ‘overcrowding’ on trains, on 14th May train companies stated there would be more trains in the week beginning the 18th. Why couldn’t the train companies been informed of the policy change in sufficient time for them to arrange for those ‘more trains’ to be available when there was an increase in the number of passengers?

By allowing people to travel, basically as far as they like in private vehicles, the Government is also effectively penalising the poorer section of the population – who don’t have a car and under normal circumstances would travel on public transport. In all the decisions that have been taken since the beginning of March it’s almost impossible to see any structure or strategy at all. Decisions are made but with no thought to their consequences. If Britain is ever to restore some some of normality – for the vast majority of the population – one of the issues that needs resolving is that of public transport and than would need a complete rethink of the concept of ‘social distancing’.

Vocabulary of ‘Opposition’ Parties in a Parliamentary Democracy

‘too soon’, ‘too late’, too much’, ‘too little’, ‘not enough’, ‘more honest’.

Companies abusing the furlough scheme

By 13th May 800 companies had been reported to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for fraudulently claiming on the furlough scheme whilst having people at work.

On Money Box, Radio 4, on both 2nd May and 16th May, there was a section of various ‘anomalies’ surrounding the so-called ‘furlough’ scheme where employers get 80% of their employees wages paid for by the State. But it hadn’t been in place for more than a couple of weeks before abuses of the system were raising their ugly heads;

  • ‘furloughed’ but still being expected to work from home
  • employers cutting peoples’ wages during the lock down
  • using the fear of isolation to get away with illegal practices
  • these matters all should remind us of the importance of unions, which too many people have consigned to history. The idea that ‘most people are only one wage packet away from destitution’ is as true today as when wages actually came in packets.

Ken Clarke (Tory, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer), Radio 4, World at One, 13th May, said that there would be cases of fraud and there would be some companies that wouldn’t have survived despite the pandemic, but who have taken money from the State in furlough schemes, business grants and loans, but that it was the maintenance of the good companies that was most important.

In the past the State would hound anyone unlawfully claiming state benefits and would spend huge amounts to get a conviction – but company cheats will get a way with murder.

Being open on the ‘scientific advice’

About three weeks ago Hancock said the Government would be open about the advice it was using to arrive at the decisions they want to impose on the population. However, when reminded of this on 13th May (during Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons) his response was ‘in due course’.

This issue came to the fore, once again, on 19th May. At that date of the 110 papers that were part of scientific advice to the Government only 28 had been released.

David Spiegelhalter, Professor of Statistics at Cambridge University, on Radio 4, World at One, 19th May;

Q. Does the Government need to be more transparent when it comes to the evidence upon which it is basing its policy decsions?

‘This discussion has been going on for a long time and many people have been calling for greater transparency. Apart from security reasons advice should be as open as possible. Covid is not an intelligent opponent, it’s not going to find out things.’

Q. What needs to be released now that hasn’t been?

‘Much would have been done rather rapidly and it’s not fair to the researchers who have produced it to put it out in the public domain. SAGE does come up with a summary statement and it would be helpful if that were made available.’

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and Care Homes

Nadra Ahmed, Chair National Care Association, in the preference given to the NHS over care homes when it came to PPE, 14th May;

‘PPE had been requisitioned for the NHS but when it came to us it was a sort of supply/demand market which was completely out of control with providers desperate for PPE so here we were suddenly left completely abandoned.’

There have been countless stories of care homes trying to buy PPE on the ‘open market’ and finding that to get even the basics they would have to pay 2, 3 or even 4 times the normal asking price. In any sort of crisis like a pandemic (or war or natural disaster which effects the whole country) the government should take matters in hand to control the price of the necessaries, whether it be food or, as in this case, protective equipment. To do otherwise just stuffs money into the pockets of spivs and gangsters.

The advice on care homes in the early days

Jennie Harries, Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England, on what they thought was the threat to residents (and staff) at care homes in the early days of the outbreak in Britain, 13th May;

‘Throughout the outbreak, and it would have been the same for any other, we look at the background of the epidemiology, they would be monitoring background diseases and so that document [scientific advice to Government] will be looking at where we knew there was a background risk of transmission. I think that, at the time, there weren’t any sustained community transmissions though we clearly had cases around.’

But surely here, from the very beginning, before the first cases were being publicised in Britain, it was accepted worldwide that those over the age of 70 with ‘underlying medical conditions’ were those most at risk. That risk rose sharply the older the person was, not least because they would be more likely to develop these ‘underlying medical conditions’ and the biggest concentration of these old people, certainly in those wealthier countries where a care home structure existed, would have been in care homes. Added to that most care homes are probably both overcrowded (in the terms of the space per resident) and understaffed – another couple to add to the recipe of disaster.

The ‘Swedish Experiment’ – an evaluation

Lena Hallegren, Swedish Health Minister, Radio 4, World at One, 13th May;

Q. Do you have any sense of the level of immunity in Sweden due to the approach you have followed? Do you know how many people have been infected?

‘Not now. In a week or so we will have an opinion about that. We probably have some immunity but we’re not sure. No figures yet. We know more people were infected in Stockholm than in other parts of Sweden. We will have numbers of infected and immunity in a week or two.’

Q. In Sweden half of all deaths have been in care homes and 25% in their own homes. How do you protect those receiving care when those looking after them are mixing in the community without lock down?

‘We are trying to figure out the changes we need to do to protect the vulnerable in a better way. I think it’s a combination of many things. It’s a fact we have to be even better with our guidelines when it comes to basic hygiene rules …. but also looking at part time workers, which means a lot of people are coming into places where there are vulnerable people. … We also have to work out how to use the PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) and we can do more when it comes to testing people, both the residents and the staff in care homes. ….. It’s still a problem. ….. The main issue was in Stockholm. ….. I hope we are better prepared in other parts of the country but I cannot say for sure.’

Q. Even though you don’t have the same sort of lock down it looks like you’ll have the same sort of economic pain as elsewhere?

‘We didn’t make any kind of choice between a lock down for economic reasons or not. We decided we wanted to have a better combination of the legally binding ones [measures] and the voluntary ones but the ones we felt we could stick with all the time, because this virus won’t disappear from our society, unfortunately, so we have to have measures and restrictions to keep all the time.

We also have big suffrance [sic] in our economy, a higher unemployment rate, even if we’re trying to help business, companies, the stores to keep up. But that’s difficult.’

Q. Are you expecting that Sweden will gain higher levels of ‘herd immunity’ because of your approach?

‘We don’t have a goal of ‘herd immunity’ but, of course, we’re interested in knowing about immunity. To know how many people have been infected, how many have gained immunity, what does that mean for our society.

We’re trying to save our health care system from a big amount of patients at the same time, to flatten the curve. We think that has been quite successful, if I may use that word, as we still have 20 – 30% availability in intensive care units. The health care has been able to receive and to care for the infected patients.’

Not too good an interview and she didn’t argue Sweden’s case particularly well, I didn’t think. It’s strange that Sweden hasn’t been collecting infection and death numbers on a daily, rolling basis so don’t really understand why there’s a wait of ‘a week or two’ before they are available. I was surprised to hear that care homes were ‘forgotten’ about in Sweden – as they were in Britain – and that obviously accounts for the high percentage of deaths in them (50%). It’s also interesting that they followed the measure they did, specifically to protect the health care system (as was the lock down in the UK, supposedly) and not for economic reasons – as the country’s economy is also in a bad way.

The most important point in this short interview is the recognition, in Sweden, from the very beginning, that the virus would be around for a long time and any measures taken had to be seen in a longer perspective. Presumably this would also be the type of measures other countries, such as Britain, would have to follow to regain some sort of society so Sweden’s experience could be useful internationally. If the health system was broken by this approach it places more questions on the efficacy of the British approach and also a question mark on how to move forward in a meaningful manner.

Hallegren is a little bit vague when it comes to the situation in the care homes and ‘hopes’ matters will improve rather than providing confidence that it will. On 19th May the situation in the Swedish care homes was questioned – but I’m not absolutely sure that this situation was being discussed in an effort to undermine the more relaxed approach Sweden has so far taken in relation to the pandemic.

Reasons for change

Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England, 11th May;

‘Really what we’re trying to do is to take very small steps which allow us to be sure that we’re not going to end up with an increase in transmissions again. We recognise that we’re going to have to do change for a long period of time and making things sustainable is extremely important.’

Why it’s safe to be outside

Lucy Yardley, Professor of Health Psychology, who sits on the scientific advisory body, SAGE, on 10th May;

‘There’s a study, for example, in China, of 7,000 people who’d been infected with coronavirus. Only 1 of those 7,000 people had been infected outside and that was during a conversation. We don’t know if they were socially-distancing but I suspect they probably weren’t. So that gives you an idea that the risk outdoors, if you remain socially-distanced, is very,very small indeed, which I think is behind the guidelines.’

Poorer workers more vulnerable – yet again

A report from the Office of National Statistics, issued on 10th May, found that;

  • men in low skilled, low paid jobs are twice as likely to die of covid-19 but there are many caveats over the information – a lot of important facts, such as social and health background, age, ethnicity, smoker/drinker, etc., not known in this study
  • perhaps too partial and thus resulted in knee jerk reactions

The General, Municipal Boilermakers Union (the GMB – should, perhaps, think of changing its name) declared the ‘figures horrifying’.

Len McCluskey, General Secretary of ‘Unite the Union’, in response said, on 11th May, it was the poorer workers who were expected to return to work, and take the most risk;

‘It’s certainly an obvious division that blue collar workers, factory workers, mainly lower paid workers are being told to go back to work while those with a higher earning scale can stay safely at home.’

How many people have been infected in Britain?

David Spiegelhalter, Professor of Statistics at Cambridge University, astounded that people still don’t know how many people have likely to have been infected, on 10th May;

‘They’re hungry for details, for facts, and yet they get fed, what I call, number theatre – which seems to be co-ordinated really much more by the No. 10 communications team rather than genuinely trying to inform people about what’s going on. I just wish that the data, which has been brought together was presented by people who really knew its strength and limitations and could treat the audience with some respect.’

More on covid pandemic 2020