Mountains In U.k. - Scone & St...
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Uk Has Highest C-19 Fatales In Europe, Second Highest In The World
We are a rich country, with a well funded health service.
What went wrong?
What went wrong?
Answers
Just to explain: Now that the UK has the highest European number of deaths, it becomes necessary to explain how the UK's numbers are exaggeratedl
11:49 Mon 11th May 2020
Just to explain: Now that the UK has the highest European number of deaths, it becomes necessary to explain how the UK's numbers are exaggeratedly high and the foreign ones fiddled too low. Any number of suggestions on how this can be achieved have been put forward - take your pick, none of them are convincing. Those who died with Covid 19 pathogens in their body are dead and they died of Covid 19. We don't quite know how many of them need not have died (half, 75% ?) had the situation been handled as well as elsewhere, but they are fare too many and, yes, that is shameful.
The UK started out with an approach which other countries have used to excellent effect, those countries are universally held up as examples of doing it right. However, the UK was so badly organised/prepared that once the case numbers went past a thousand or so they began to run out of testing kits and couldn't maintain a test, contact trace, isolate and retest operation. The UK did the equivalent of throwing a losing hand of cards into the air and stomping off - the policy of herd immunity was adopted ("You are all on your own" type of approach). Then once the system was staring disaster in the face there was a second change of policy to try to avert it, and we are still with that one.
In my opinion the tendency to convert this history into a political issue is missing the point - some other party in power would have made next to no difference. The UK was unprepared and politicians have been centre stage - elsewhere politicians have stayed out of it bar authorising the professionals to do the planning and shaping the policy and that is where success has been conspicuous. Politicians can't bring themselves to admit that there is a mess nor do those who are partisan - that does not remove the mess.
The UK had an unjustified self-image as a not quite invincible but certainly superior nation, one that had elements of complacency interwoven into it. Now there needs to be room for acceptance that this was a mistake that led to more mistakes, certainly when it came to the pandemic. The UK is as vulnerable as anywhere else and to fail to accept that is to invite proof of the self-image being false. The UK wasted the very short but usable advance notice it got - although others have done the same, that is no consolation to those who have lost a relative or a friend.
The UK started out with an approach which other countries have used to excellent effect, those countries are universally held up as examples of doing it right. However, the UK was so badly organised/prepared that once the case numbers went past a thousand or so they began to run out of testing kits and couldn't maintain a test, contact trace, isolate and retest operation. The UK did the equivalent of throwing a losing hand of cards into the air and stomping off - the policy of herd immunity was adopted ("You are all on your own" type of approach). Then once the system was staring disaster in the face there was a second change of policy to try to avert it, and we are still with that one.
In my opinion the tendency to convert this history into a political issue is missing the point - some other party in power would have made next to no difference. The UK was unprepared and politicians have been centre stage - elsewhere politicians have stayed out of it bar authorising the professionals to do the planning and shaping the policy and that is where success has been conspicuous. Politicians can't bring themselves to admit that there is a mess nor do those who are partisan - that does not remove the mess.
The UK had an unjustified self-image as a not quite invincible but certainly superior nation, one that had elements of complacency interwoven into it. Now there needs to be room for acceptance that this was a mistake that led to more mistakes, certainly when it came to the pandemic. The UK is as vulnerable as anywhere else and to fail to accept that is to invite proof of the self-image being false. The UK wasted the very short but usable advance notice it got - although others have done the same, that is no consolation to those who have lost a relative or a friend.
Healthcare is pretty expensive. £140 billion may not be enough. Also you do kind of need a management system.
I don't agree that a public enquiry won't be worth it. It's not a question of apportioning blame, it simply stands to reason that this wasn't the perfect response. Compare for example the progression and response in South Korea, where despite signs that the disease was going to spread out of control there, a rapid and coordinated response saw Covid-19 growth slow to a gentle crawl. We can't not take that as an important lesson for future outbreaks.
I don't agree that a public enquiry won't be worth it. It's not a question of apportioning blame, it simply stands to reason that this wasn't the perfect response. Compare for example the progression and response in South Korea, where despite signs that the disease was going to spread out of control there, a rapid and coordinated response saw Covid-19 growth slow to a gentle crawl. We can't not take that as an important lesson for future outbreaks.
// In my opinion the tendency to convert this history into a political issue is missing the point - some other party in power would have made next to no difference. The UK was unprepared ... //
I want to voice my agreement with KARL. This isn't about Tory bashing, for me at least. Johnson's Government drew the short straw.
I want to voice my agreement with KARL. This isn't about Tory bashing, for me at least. Johnson's Government drew the short straw.
£140 Bn would be plenty, if it was just for healthcare of UK citizens.
As TTT points out a massive restructuring is required(clearly management is still needed but it needs to be the correct management).
What went wrong says Gromit, well maybe ask Mr Bliar why he started letting so many in and then ask the liberal Tories why they continued the policy.
Add to that you are comparing apples with pears and you may get your answer. Unfortunately for you it wont be a British bashing one.
As TTT points out a massive restructuring is required(clearly management is still needed but it needs to be the correct management).
What went wrong says Gromit, well maybe ask Mr Bliar why he started letting so many in and then ask the liberal Tories why they continued the policy.
Add to that you are comparing apples with pears and you may get your answer. Unfortunately for you it wont be a British bashing one.
Our figures are high but would it be too difficult to at least acknowledge Gromit &Karl the fact that our population is bigger than those of Italy and Spain and our deaths per million figure is quite a bit lower. So why focus on the actual number. We clearly have to try to work out why our figures are so much higher than those of Germany, Japan and USA, but our figures on the whole are not miles apart from similar large countries such as France. (I'm ignoring figures that don't seem believable like Russia, China, India, African countries). People hold up Sweden as a great example but it's not massively different to ours in terms of deaths per million.
A large factor must be speed and enforcement of lockdown, but other factors such as age profile, overall health levels, population density, higher BAME mix, must be factors. Luck may also be a factor- why did Italy get so many cases early on but Greece didn't- it only needed a few cases to start spreading fast.
Methods of counting is also a factor- it's why Belgium's figures look so high per million- way above ours, and some still only count certain deaths such as hospital deaths or deaths following a positive Covid test
A large factor must be speed and enforcement of lockdown, but other factors such as age profile, overall health levels, population density, higher BAME mix, must be factors. Luck may also be a factor- why did Italy get so many cases early on but Greece didn't- it only needed a few cases to start spreading fast.
Methods of counting is also a factor- it's why Belgium's figures look so high per million- way above ours, and some still only count certain deaths such as hospital deaths or deaths following a positive Covid test
Why the blame is being put on the NHS I don't know. Yes ,spending per head may not have kept pace with increased immigration and birth rate and increased longevity, but apart from the PPE issue financial resources have not been a issue during Covid- there has been capacity.
Clearly inadequate stocks of PPE (and whose responsibility it really was) will become an issue for an enquiry, but I wonder if many major countries had sufficient PPE in stock at the start of the year to get them through Covid
Clearly inadequate stocks of PPE (and whose responsibility it really was) will become an issue for an enquiry, but I wonder if many major countries had sufficient PPE in stock at the start of the year to get them through Covid
Well, either ymb's implying mass immigration is a factor or he has no point at all.
I agree that there's a lot to disentangle, ff. But one other factor when comparing to Italy/Spain is that, as was noted at the time, we were some number of weeks behind them in terms of the epidemic's progression. That we had three weeks longer to prepare and nevertheless ended up in a similar situation is at least thought-provoking. Was it bad luck? Possibly that too: luck always plays a part in such tales, and it's almost certainly true that the disease was circulating relatively undetected for a while. On the other hand, the early version of the Government's approach was "Contain, delay, Mitigate". "Contain" could only work if there were sufficient levels of testing and contact tracing, and there evidently was not. Even now we are still not where even the Government, let alone its critics, wants to be in terms of testing volume. I think it's safe to say that the "Contain" phase of the response was well-motivated but ultimately unsuccessful. I don't want to offer an opinion on whether the failing was avoidable or not, but any history that sees a country go from "we can still contain this" to "don't leave your home except when essential" in barely a week at least requires asking these questions. Could the UK have done better? Why is it regarded as the wrong time to ask, or unpatriotic to ask at all?
I agree that there's a lot to disentangle, ff. But one other factor when comparing to Italy/Spain is that, as was noted at the time, we were some number of weeks behind them in terms of the epidemic's progression. That we had three weeks longer to prepare and nevertheless ended up in a similar situation is at least thought-provoking. Was it bad luck? Possibly that too: luck always plays a part in such tales, and it's almost certainly true that the disease was circulating relatively undetected for a while. On the other hand, the early version of the Government's approach was "Contain, delay, Mitigate". "Contain" could only work if there were sufficient levels of testing and contact tracing, and there evidently was not. Even now we are still not where even the Government, let alone its critics, wants to be in terms of testing volume. I think it's safe to say that the "Contain" phase of the response was well-motivated but ultimately unsuccessful. I don't want to offer an opinion on whether the failing was avoidable or not, but any history that sees a country go from "we can still contain this" to "don't leave your home except when essential" in barely a week at least requires asking these questions. Could the UK have done better? Why is it regarded as the wrong time to ask, or unpatriotic to ask at all?
Hi woofo - yeah in a minute! dont use less than and gtr than - they are deleters !
// ..like people buying tons of pasta who only eat it twice a year.//
er the minimising model is to keep one in stock innit? -
- and if the shelf life is shorter than consumption gap er s is less than c - - - or Ls is less than Lc ( L - life - s is shelf and c is time from pasta meal to next pasta meal)
then the mimising model is just buy when you feel like it- or if you want a float then always keep one in stock - that is - keep one in stock and buy immediately after eating
this uses the principle first published in 1913
and is a model - and once learnt, isnt used - like most models hahaha
and to woofo - this was to model normal use
if you want to be sure you can have 800 more ventilators at short notice then your ventilator pool should be 800
but I think whether or not it is worth it, is a political one
but wait - theres more - if you only want to keep 400 - then if there is an epidemic wiv 550 xs deaths, and the cost of buying and storing is £100m - seems very low - then wasting each life has saved £200,000 ( 100m/500)
sqad if he reads this will understand why or how I was a particularly successful treasurer of a royal college - 5m to 25m in 6 y
now to Jim - on public inquiries
// ..like people buying tons of pasta who only eat it twice a year.//
er the minimising model is to keep one in stock innit? -
- and if the shelf life is shorter than consumption gap er s is less than c - - - or Ls is less than Lc ( L - life - s is shelf and c is time from pasta meal to next pasta meal)
then the mimising model is just buy when you feel like it- or if you want a float then always keep one in stock - that is - keep one in stock and buy immediately after eating
this uses the principle first published in 1913
and is a model - and once learnt, isnt used - like most models hahaha
and to woofo - this was to model normal use
if you want to be sure you can have 800 more ventilators at short notice then your ventilator pool should be 800
but I think whether or not it is worth it, is a political one
but wait - theres more - if you only want to keep 400 - then if there is an epidemic wiv 550 xs deaths, and the cost of buying and storing is £100m - seems very low - then wasting each life has saved £200,000 ( 100m/500)
sqad if he reads this will understand why or how I was a particularly successful treasurer of a royal college - 5m to 25m in 6 y
now to Jim - on public inquiries
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Home & Garden10 mins ago
Religion & Spirituality - What...
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.