COVID19

[MintTrav]

Does someone here know why we aren’t doing the things other countries have? I don’t mean the testing or PPE, but widespread temperature-taking and use of apps. I have friends who tell me they can’t go anywhere without their temperature being taken with those forehead guns, and some places require people to take their own temp and upload it from the machine daily. It’s also clear that there are some very clever apps with different-coloured ‘passports’ and contact-tracking. It’s not ground-breaking - countries in Asia have been doing all this for months, and are still doing it. I was expecting to see them here, but I haven’t heard a word about it. Are these things not thought to be effective, or do we know of other reasons why they aren’t happening?

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Having written the above, I did some Googling before posting, and found that the use of apps was in the news yesterday for a couple of reasons, as there are some hurdles to be dealt with and some criteria for their use was published, but none of them seem difficult to overcome.

I also found that there are many apps in development, but every country seems to be developing its own. Outside Asia, it seems that Czech, North Macedonia and Ghana have been first out with theirs, and there are lots of others on the way. I don’t get this either - don’t we just need a couple of systems to start with, rather than everyone making their own? Couldn’t we all have been using the Chinese or Singapore tech for the last two months, and follow on with improvements, rather than starting from scratch and delaying their use?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_apps

[Karabiner]

Does someone here know why we aren’t doing the things other countries have? I don’t mean the testing or PPE, but widespread temperature-taking and use of apps. I have friends who tell me they can’t go anywhere without their temperature being taken with those forehead guns, and some places require people to take their own temp and upload it from the machine daily. It’s also clear that there are some very clever apps with different-coloured ‘passports’ and contact-tracking. It’s not ground-breaking - countries in Asia have been doing all this for months, and are still doing it. I was expecting to see them here, but I haven’t heard a word about it. Are these things not thought to be effective, or do we know of other reasons why they aren’t happening?

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Having written the above, I did some Googling before posting, and found that the use of apps was in the news yesterday for a couple of reasons, as there are some hurdles to be dealt with and some criteria for their use was published, but none of them seem difficult to overcome.

I also found that there are many apps in development, but every country seems to be developing its own. Outside Asia, it seems that Czech, North Macedonia and Ghana have been first out with theirs, and there are lots of others on the way. I don’t get this either - don’t we just need a couple of systems to start with, rather than everyone making their own? Couldn’t we all have been using the Chinese or Singapore tech for the last two months, and follow on with improvements, rather than starting from scratch and delaying their use?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_apps

I've been wondering about that myself - especially for passengers disembarking from places such as NY and other hot-spots.

[kukushkin88]

Does someone here know why we aren’t doing the things other countries have? I don’t mean the testing or PPE, but widespread temperature-taking and use of apps. I have friends who tell me they can’t go anywhere without their temperature being taken with those forehead guns, and some places require people to take their own temp and upload it from the machine daily. It’s also clear that there are some very clever apps with different-coloured ‘passports’ and contact-tracking. It’s not ground-breaking - countries in Asia have been doing all this for months, and are still doing it. I was expecting to see them here, but I haven’t heard a word about it. Are these things not thought to be effective, or do we know of other reasons why they aren’t happening?

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Having written the above, I did some Googling before posting, and found that the use of apps was in the news yesterday for a couple of reasons, as there are some hurdles to be dealt with and some criteria for their use was published, but none of them seem difficult to overcome.

I also found that there are many apps in development, but every country seems to be developing its own. Outside Asia, it seems that Czech, North Macedonia and Ghana have been first out with theirs, and there are lots of others on the way. I don’t get this either - don’t we just need a couple of systems to start with, rather than everyone making their own? Couldn’t we all have been using the Chinese or Singapore tech for the last two months, and follow on with improvements, rather than starting from scratch and delaying their use?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_apps

A big factor is that we simply don’t have the manpower or organisational infrastructure for lots of this stuff. PHE is a tiny organisation for the size of the country and Local Authorities, where the manpower and infrastructure used to exist, have been on their knees for years. £1.6 billion extra to cover Coronavirus expenses, OK that should be plenty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52329829

[kukushkin88]

No sign of the FT backing down from its editorial stance that it was a bad time to have dishonest, incompetent clowns in charge:

https://www.ft.com/content/5f393d77-8e5b-4a85-b647-416efbc575ec

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1251434219139665920?s=21

[kukushkin88]

Meanwhile, at The Telegraph:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/need-boris-health-health-nation/amp/

https://twitter.com/thewiltonweigh/status/1251438341553348608?s=21

[Woodsey]

No sign of the FT backing down from its editorial stance that it was a bad time to have dishonest, incompetent clowns in charge:

https://www.ft.com/content/5f393d77-8e5b-4a85-b647-416efbc575ec

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1251434219139665920?s=21

Just imagine if Corbo and Abbott were at the helm 

[kukushkin88]

No sign of the FT backing down from its editorial stance that it was a bad time to have dishonest, incompetent clowns in charge:

https://www.ft.com/content/5f393d77-8e5b-4a85-b647-416efbc575ec

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1251434219139665920?s=21

Just imagine if Corbo and Abbott were at the helm 

We don’t have to reduce everything to the old, tired and childish (incredibly dumb) squabble, Corbyn’s part in us currently being governed by a clown show is in the past now. It’s not irrelevant though, other than short term stupidity (see the table below), the issue in the UK is at least in part a lack of public investment. Corbyn proposed a similar level of public investment to Germany, the Conservative flagship policy for years has been to run all public service in to the ground.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52103747

[kukushkin88]

This is an interesting one:

https://time.com/5820556/ventilators-covid-19/

[Woodsey]

No sign of the FT backing down from its editorial stance that it was a bad time to have dishonest, incompetent clowns in charge:

https://www.ft.com/content/5f393d77-8e5b-4a85-b647-416efbc575ec

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1251434219139665920?s=21

Just imagine if Corbo and Abbott were at the helm 

We don’t have to reduce everything to the old, tired and childish (incredibly dumb) squabble, Corbyn’s part in us currently being governed by a clown show is in the past now. It’s not irrelevant though, other than short term stupidity (see the table below), the issue in the UK is at least in part a lack of public investment. Corbyn proposed a similar level of public investment to Germany, the Conservative flagship policy for years has been to run all public service in to the ground.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52103747

You started it mate, I only respond to your blinkered nonsense, keep doing it and so will I.....

[kukushkin88]

No sign of the FT backing down from its editorial stance that it was a bad time to have dishonest, incompetent clowns in charge:

https://www.ft.com/content/5f393d77-8e5b-4a85-b647-416efbc575ec

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1251434219139665920?s=21

Just imagine if Corbo and Abbott were at the helm 

We don’t have to reduce everything to the old, tired and childish (incredibly dumb) squabble, Corbyn’s part in us currently being governed by a clown show is in the past now. It’s not irrelevant though, other than short term stupidity (see the table below), the issue in the UK is at least in part a lack of public investment. Corbyn proposed a similar level of public investment to Germany, the Conservative flagship policy for years has been to run all public service in to the ground.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52103747

You started it mate, I only respond to your blinkered nonsense, keep doing it and so will I.....

It’s not ‘my’ blinkered nonsense. It’s pretty much the most respected newspaper in the world (I don’t think anyone doubts this, I can’t even think of realistic English language contenders), reporting day in and day out, that this is a bad time to be governed by incompetent and dishonest clowns.

[Woodsey]

No sign of the FT backing down from its editorial stance that it was a bad time to have dishonest, incompetent clowns in charge:

https://www.ft.com/content/5f393d77-8e5b-4a85-b647-416efbc575ec

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1251434219139665920?s=21

Just imagine if Corbo and Abbott were at the helm  

We don’t have to reduce everything to the old, tired and childish (incredibly dumb) squabble, Corbyn’s part in us currently being governed by a clown show is in the past now. It’s not irrelevant though, other than short term stupidity (see the table below), the issue in the UK is at least in part a lack of public investment. Corbyn proposed a similar level of public investment to Germany, the Conservative flagship policy for years has been to run all public service in to the ground.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52103747

You started it mate, I only respond to your blinkered nonsense, keep doing it and so will I.....

It’s not ‘my’ blinkered nonsense. It’s pretty much the most respected newspaper in the world (I don’t think anyone doubts this, I can’t even think of realistic English language contenders), reporting day in and day out, that this is a bad time to be governed by incompetent and dishonest clowns.

I didn’t look at the link, just talking about the blinkered nonsense that comes out of your trap most days  on here......

[kukushkin88]

No sign of the FT backing down from its editorial stance that it was a bad time to have dishonest, incompetent clowns in charge:

https://www.ft.com/content/5f393d77-8e5b-4a85-b647-416efbc575ec

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1251434219139665920?s=21

Just imagine if Corbo and Abbott were at the helm  

We don’t have to reduce everything to the old, tired and childish (incredibly dumb) squabble, Corbyn’s part in us currently being governed by a clown show is in the past now. It’s not irrelevant though, other than short term stupidity (see the table below), the issue in the UK is at least in part a lack of public investment. Corbyn proposed a similar level of public investment to Germany, the Conservative flagship policy for years has been to run all public service in to the ground.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52103747

You started it mate, I only respond to your blinkered nonsense, keep doing it and so will I.....

It’s not ‘my’ blinkered nonsense. It’s pretty much the most respected newspaper in the world (I don’t think anyone doubts this, I can’t even think of realistic English language contenders), reporting day in and day out, that this is a bad time to be governed by incompetent and dishonest clowns.

I didn’t look at the link, just talking about the blinkered nonsense that comes out of your trap most days  on here......

Maybe look at the FT link?

[Woodsey]

No sign of the FT backing down from its editorial stance that it was a bad time to have dishonest, incompetent clowns in charge:

https://www.ft.com/content/5f393d77-8e5b-4a85-b647-416efbc575ec

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1251434219139665920?s=21

Just imagine if Corbo and Abbott were at the helm  

We don’t have to reduce everything to the old, tired and childish (incredibly dumb) squabble, Corbyn’s part in us currently being governed by a clown show is in the past now. It’s not irrelevant though, other than short term stupidity (see the table below), the issue in the UK is at least in part a lack of public investment. Corbyn proposed a similar level of public investment to Germany, the Conservative flagship policy for years has been to run all public service in to the ground.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52103747

You started it mate, I only respond to your blinkered nonsense, keep doing it and so will I.....

It’s not ‘my’ blinkered nonsense. It’s pretty much the most respected newspaper in the world (I don’t think anyone doubts this, I can’t even think of realistic English language contenders), reporting day in and day out, that this is a bad time to be governed by incompetent and dishonest clowns.

I didn’t look at the link, just talking about the blinkered nonsense that comes out of your trap most days  on here......

Maybe look at the FT link?

No need.......

[kukushkin88]

...
Any ideas on the 2,500 extra deaths? Other than those attributable to people not seeking medical help because of Covid, you’d surely expect them to go down while we’re mostly locked down safely at home.

Something like this, is the only thing that really makes sense:
(It’s a bit tenuous at this stage but there aren’t many other explanations, are there?)

https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1250731649152811008?s=21
(another quite divisive figure)

I'm a bit confused by that report/claim.

The tweet and topic is, "Leaked guidance from an NHS hospital trust reveals doctors are being told they are not required to put COVID-19 on death certificates.".

What a doctor puts on a death certificate is their professional opinion as to the most likely cause of death.

They quote the guidance as saying, ‘Doctors are asked to use the standard MCCD (Medical Certificate of Cause of Death) form to certify death. ‘Pneumonia ‘or ‘community acquired pneumonia’ are acceptable at 1(a) on the MCCD. There is no requirement to write COVID 19 as part of the MCCD. It may be mentioned at 1(b) on the form, should the doctor wish.’

Part a is what do you think is the direct cause of death
Part b is what else do you think might have contributed to the death.

I would read that as the trust making it clear that just because there is a pandemic doctors don't have to put COVID19 down for every respiratory/pneumonia death.

It is a bit 'wrong' as it is a slightly different emphasis to the government's central advice which is more like - if you think it's COVID19 you can put down COVID19.

What confuses me is that this so clearly leaves COVID19 on the death certificate that I don't understand why the "Good Law Project" that started the petition would go ahead with this complaint.

Also, as mentioned before, if doctors weren't putting COVID19 down they would be putting pneumonia down and those figures are only slightly higher than average - well within what you might expect the normal variance to be.

To clarify: if COVID19 is mentioned on any part of the death certificate then it is counted in the ONS figures, so putting it in part 1b wouldn't make a difference to putting it in 1a.

Thanks Jon.

This is a useful explanation. 

I have sifted through death certificates in the distant past as Insurers monitor trends in mortality and causes of death.  It was a very manual process back then and we never had to do it quite so quickly.  There were always grey areas back then with causes of death, so this isn't a new thing. I am never really surprised about people overeact to.   Not everything you see is a Government cover-up, here it is clearly different people interpreting the same words in a slightly different way. 

I'll just add that up until very recently, I'd have been impressed by any insurer who was doing this a couple of months in arrears.   Speed and accuracy aren't going to be comfortable bedfellows.

I thought this was interesting:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040287v1

[Pokerpops]

...
Any ideas on the 2,500 extra deaths? Other than those attributable to people not seeking medical help because of Covid, you’d surely expect them to go down while we’re mostly locked down safely at home.

Something like this, is the only thing that really makes sense:
(It’s a bit tenuous at this stage but there aren’t many other explanations, are there?)

https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1250731649152811008?s=21
(another quite divisive figure)

I'm a bit confused by that report/claim.

The tweet and topic is, "Leaked guidance from an NHS hospital trust reveals doctors are being told they are not required to put COVID-19 on death certificates.".

What a doctor puts on a death certificate is their professional opinion as to the most likely cause of death.

They quote the guidance as saying, ‘Doctors are asked to use the standard MCCD (Medical Certificate of Cause of Death) form to certify death. ‘Pneumonia ‘or ‘community acquired pneumonia’ are acceptable at 1(a) on the MCCD. There is no requirement to write COVID 19 as part of the MCCD. It may be mentioned at 1(b) on the form, should the doctor wish.’

Part a is what do you think is the direct cause of death
Part b is what else do you think might have contributed to the death.

I would read that as the trust making it clear that just because there is a pandemic doctors don't have to put COVID19 down for every respiratory/pneumonia death.

It is a bit 'wrong' as it is a slightly different emphasis to the government's central advice which is more like - if you think it's COVID19 you can put down COVID19.

What confuses me is that this so clearly leaves COVID19 on the death certificate that I don't understand why the "Good Law Project" that started the petition would go ahead with this complaint.

Also, as mentioned before, if doctors weren't putting COVID19 down they would be putting pneumonia down and those figures are only slightly higher than average - well within what you might expect the normal variance to be.

To clarify: if COVID19 is mentioned on any part of the death certificate then it is counted in the ONS figures, so putting it in part 1b wouldn't make a difference to putting it in 1a.

Thanks Jon.

This is a useful explanation. 

I have sifted through death certificates in the distant past as Insurers monitor trends in mortality and causes of death.  It was a very manual process back then and we never had to do it quite so quickly.  There were always grey areas back then with causes of death, so this isn't a new thing. I am never really surprised about people overeact to.   Not everything you see is a Government cover-up, here it is clearly different people interpreting the same words in a slightly different way. 

I'll just add that up until very recently, I'd have been impressed by any insurer who was doing this a couple of months in arrears.   Speed and accuracy aren't going to be comfortable bedfellows.

I thought this was interesting:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040287v1

What did you find interesting in that?
Serious question.