Not surprisingly perhaps – conscious as they must be that they will be lucky to escape criminal charges – the government has started to devote as much time to managing the cover-up and defence case as to ‘managing’ the epidemic. These are the key lines in the defence which we can expect to see more of in the coming days: Continue reading “The ‘excuses’”
This is from the Home Secretary who is called Ms Patel:
I fully expect the majority of people will do the right thing and abide by these measures. But we will take enforcement action against the minority of people who endanger the safety of others.
She has just announced some kind of quarantine or self-isolation scheme for people arriving in the UK. Approximately 12 weeks after it would have made sense to introduce such a scheme. If the landscape wasn’t littered with the corpses of the elderly and sick who have needlessly died as a result of the government’s inaction it would be amusing to watch them explain why a quarantine scheme is necessary now as the peak (of deaths) slowly heads towards the low hundreds a day and why it wasn’t necessary when the peak was rising and at the same level. Of course there is no decent explanation for this. Which is probably one reason why Ms Patel has to try and shame everyone when she makes her announcement. Continue reading “Now they are trying to shame their way out of it…”
The Health Secretary, Matt Hancock:
We will keep working to strengthen the protective ring we have cast around all our care homes. 
The truth – a cardiologist at a top London hospital (in an anonymous tip off to a journalist, as recounted by the journalist):
Basically, every mistake that could have been made, was made. He likened the care home policy to the Siege of Caffa in 1346, that grim chapter of the Black Death when a Mongol army catapulted plague-ridden bodies over the walls.
“Our policy was to let the virus rip and then ‘cocoon the elderly’,” he wrote. “You don’t know whether to laugh or cry when you contrast that with what we actually did. We discharged known, suspected, and unknown cases into care homes which were unprepared, with no formal warning that the patients were infected, no testing available, and no PPE to prevent transmission. We actively seeded this into the very population that was most vulnerable. 
These people are not just willing to let tens of thousands of elderly people die completely needlessly but they are prepared to brazenly try and spin their way out of it.
It is beginning to look quite simple. They went for “herd immunity” (thinking that Britain would not have to close its economy and would steal a march on its European competitors) based on a “specious” understanding of science. But in doing so they simply forgot about care homes.
(For background; this is a link to an article in the Daily Telegraph from 15 April – about 10 weeks into the crisis – which makes it clear that while they were now (from 16 April ) testing patients prior to discharge from hospital it was still policy to discharge patients infected with Covid-19 into care homes – as indeed it still is. The testing for staff the government was promising on 15 April has only very recently become a reality and even then one which is, apparently beset with delays and problems with lost tests).
This is the government’s attempt to try to spin their way out of the fact that their policies have led to thousands of needless deaths in care homes. Particularly odious is Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty trying to pretend that the slow strengthening of the protocols – from moving untested and infected patients into care homes to the current policy of testing all patients prior to discharge – is something to do with “And as the clinical understanding of coronavirus has strengthened, so too, we’ve updated and strengthened our guidance.” This is complete tosh. Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty is consciously lying. That Sars-Cov-2 was a severe coronavirus leading to serious respiratory illness with a very high mortality rate in elderly people was well-established by (and this is being incredibly fair) early March. (You only had to look at Italy). And that was all you needed to know to understand that under no circumstances should you have been deliberately mixing Covid-19 infected patients with the one group most likely to die from Covid-19.
The current policy is to test but still to discharge positive patients into care homes.  Smaller, less-well resourced, care homes do not have the resources and facilities to manage a regime of total isolation and indeed the full barrier nursing that would be required to have a reasonable chance of avoiding cross-infection. All they’ve done is shift the crisis from hospitals to care homes. This may be the real meaning of the slogan “Protect the NHS”.
- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-guidance-for-stepdown-of-infection-control-precautions-within-hospitals-and-discharging-covid-19-patients-from-hospital-to-home-settings/guidance-for-stepdown-of-infection-control-precautions-and-discharging-covid-19-patients https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-guidance-for-stepdown-of-infection-control-precautions-within-hospitals-and-discharging-covid-19-patients-from-hospital-to-home-settings/guidance-for-stepdown-of-infection-control-precautions-and-discharging-covid-19-patients#discharge-to-a-single-occupancy-room-in-care-facility-including-nursing-homes-and-residential-homes
To some extent it is easy to comment with the benefit of hindsight. That said, the government – and this includes many highly-paid officials – have spent tax-payers money on anticipating and planning for health epidemics. And so they should at least have had a viable plan in a drawer somewhere. And sufficient stores of the necessary equipment and ability to carry out tests.
It is interesting to note a report in the Daily Telegraph  that the computer code for the Imperial College modelling which has informed the lockdown decision is being described by software engineers as a “buggy mess”. This writer is also a software developer and I am not in the least surprised to learn that code written by non software expert academics is a mess.  More to the point; the models (which contributed to the original lockdown decision in the UK) appear ridiculously unreal: “The Imperial model works by using code to simulate transport links, population size, social networks and healthcare provisions to predict how coronavirus would spread”. As an IT expert I can say that this sounds like an impossible task; too many unknowns and too many assumptions. “Buggy mess” or not I would not expect anything credible from this, which sounds like a classic example of academics amusing themselves (at public expense) and not producing anything which could possibly have any serious bearing on the real world. Continue reading “Coronavirus – The UK’s botched ‘strategy’”
South Korea deaths: 256 (Population: 51 million)
UK deaths: 32,140 (plus all the ones in care homes and at home who haven’t been counted) (Population: 66 million)
The question is – will the government ever be asked this simple question.
I don’t know anything about Piers Morgan (other than he is a controversial media figure). But, anyway, this short video extract which I’m posting a link to from the Metro shows that he is a real journalist. He marshalls the necessary points and presents a challenge to those in power (at least an MP) in a clear and systematic way and nearly manages to keep his cool while doing so. He tries to break through the evasions and spin and ask the questions the government is trying to avoid. Excellent stuff. All too rare these days.
The Guardian and Independent are desperate to suppress the theory that SARS-Cov-2 emerged as a result of an accidental escape from a laboratory in Wuhan were coronaviruses are being studied.
It is undisputed that there are two labs in Wuhan which have been studying such viruses. One is a level 4 (the highest level) bio-security lab. This lab has been conducting significant amount of research into coronaviruses – of the same kind as SARS-Cov-2. One of its researchers is known for travelling to a location several hundred kilometers away where the horseshoe bats which are thought to be the primary animal source for the virus live. She collects samples and brings them back to her lab in Wuhan. The lab is just 8 miles from the live animal market in Wuhan which is claimed as the origin of the virus. Continue reading “The anti-lab theory hoax in the UK’s liberal press”