# Covid response ‘one of UK’s worst ever public health failures’



## Northerner (Oct 12, 2021)

Britain’s early handling of the coronavirus pandemic was one of the worst public health failures in UK history, with ministers and scientists taking a “fatalistic” approach that exacerbated the death toll, a landmark inquiry has found.

“Groupthink”, evidence of British exceptionalism and a deliberately “slow and gradualist” approach meant the UK fared “significantly worse” than other countries, according to the 151-page “Coronavirus: lessons learned to date” report led by two former Conservative ministers.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ed-of-impact-on-uk-four-years-before-pandemic
The crisis exposed “major deficiencies in the machinery of government”, with public bodies unable to share vital information and scientific advice impaired by a lack of transparency, input from international experts and meaningful challenge.

Despite being one of the first countries to develop a test for Covid in January 2020, the UK “squandered” its lead and “converted it into one of permanent crisis”. The consequences were profound, the report says. “For a country with a world-class expertise in data analysis, to face the biggest health crisis in 100 years with virtually no data to analyse was an almost unimaginable setback.”









						Covid response ‘one of UK’s worst ever public health failures’
					

Early handling and belief in ‘herd immunity’ led to more deaths, Commons inquiry finds




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## mikeyB (Oct 13, 2021)

Boris Johnson, of course, knew that this report was to be produced, so he has scurried off to his millionaire pal’s villa in the sun to hide while his competence is trashed ill the story moves on.

You may remember he pulled the same “fingers in ears” stunt right at the beginning of the pandemic, missing the first few Cobra meetings while studiously writing a book in Chequers. 

Watch while he punts a public inquiry about the government handling of the pandemic into the long grass. People are starting to wonder why the UK has the worst per capita Covid death rate in the western world.


----------



## Drummer (Oct 13, 2021)

There are a fair few old people's homes in this area and it was common to see people going home on the bus with tears pouring down their cheeks.
A relative of someone in the band was in one home where all the residents on the top floor died in a 12 hour period, and there was no one to look after them.
It was common for people to be carrying big bags of things to be washed when travelling on the busses, as everything had to be reused when PPE was diverted to the hospitals leaving the homes with no other choice but to use and reuse.


----------



## Amity Island (Oct 14, 2021)

"Despite being one of the first countries to develop a test for Covid in January 2020"



There is no test for covid.


----------



## nonethewiser (Oct 15, 2021)

Disgraceful. Remember at start PM shaking hands with people despite warnings, with clown like that in charge it was never going to end well.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Oct 15, 2021)

nonethewiser said:


> Disgraceful. Remember at start PM shaking hands with people despite warnings, with clown like that in charge it was never going to end well.


And now we have over 1% of the population at any time infected, with about double the number of deaths (per million population) as other countries in Europe, and we're apparently OK with that. (While also being upset that hospitals are under extreme stress and that GPs aren't offering enough of the right kinds of appointments.)


----------



## Sally71 (Oct 15, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> "Despite being one of the first countries to develop a test for Covid in January 2020"
> 
> 
> 
> There is no test for covid.


Why have I been wasting my time doing lateral flow tests twice a week since February then? If it isn’t testing for Covid, what is it testing for?


----------



## Robin (Oct 15, 2021)

Sally71 said:


> Why have I been wasting my time doing lateral flow tests twice a week since February then? If it isn’t testing for Covid, what is it testing for?


Amity Island clings to the strict definition of the tests, which is that they test for the SARS-coV-2 virus.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Oct 15, 2021)

Robin said:


> Amity Island clings to the strict definition of the tests, which is that they test for the SARS-coV-2 virus.


I guess in the same way that there's no test for _measles, _only for the _measles virus_.

Or some similar position.


----------



## Robin (Oct 15, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> I guess in the same way that there's no test for _measles, _only for the _measles virus_.
> 
> Or some equally stupid position.


Believe me, there has been a lengthy discussion in the past on another thread!


----------



## Amity Island (Oct 15, 2021)

Sally71 said:


> Why have I been wasting my time doing lateral flow tests twice a week since February then? If it isn’t testing for Covid, what is it testing for?


Hi Sally,

It's really important that when these tests are discussed, particulary in national press and by experts, doctors, scientists etc that they do use the correct terminology. It's not me being picky or "clinging" to anything, it's _absolutley_ fundamental. Anybody worth "their salt" anybody with any "credibility" anybody that _really_ knows what they are talking about needs to show that they know this.

The PCR and lateral flow test only tests for the Sars-cov-2 virus. This test alone doesn't indicate if someone has a current infection, nor does it confirm if someone is infectious. Tests are supposed to be an aid for doctors to check if the symptoms presenting are in fact those of the virus and thus if that person has gone on to develop covid19 from the circulating virus. It's unusual for random virus tests to be carried out without presenting symptoms first. Testing randomly can produce high numbers of unreliable positive results.

Just because someone has a positive test, does not necessarliy mean they have covid19.


----------



## Amity Island (Oct 15, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> I guess in the same way that there's no test for _measles, _only for the _measles virus_.
> 
> Or some equally stupid position.


@Eddy Edson 

Why is it a stupid position to say that a positive sars-cov-2 test doesn't mean someone has or will go on to develop covid19? people can get really ill with covid19.


----------



## Robin (Oct 15, 2021)

Before we derail yet another thread with an argument over semantics, the full history of this discussion can be found here.


			https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/covid-variant-found-in-india-may-delay-lifting-of-england-restrictions-minister-admits.93277/page-2


----------



## Amity Island (Oct 15, 2021)

Robin said:


> Before we derail yet another thread with an argument over semantics, the full history of this discussion can be found here.
> 
> 
> https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/covid-variant-found-in-india-may-delay-lifting-of-england-restrictions-minister-admits.93277/page-2


Hi @Robin

I don't understand what you mean by semantics? It's not semantics. Telling someone they have tested positive (for sarscov2) is completely different to telling someone they have covid19. It's a great leap to suggest a positive test means someone has covid19.

Is there anybody else on here who understands this? I can't understand why others don't understand this? It seems simple and logical to me lol

Thinking of an analagy, it's the difference between having a violin and being able to play it. The distinction is quite obvious....to me anyway. lol. Just because someone has a violin doesn't mean they can or will be able to play it.

From what you and @Eddy Edson are saying is if you are found to own a violin then that proves you can play it.


----------



## Robin (Oct 15, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Hi @Robin
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by semantics? It's not semantics. Telling someone they have tested positive (for sarscov2) is completely different to telling someone they have covid19. It's a great leap to suggest a positive test means someone has covid19.
> 
> Is there anybody else on here who understands this? I can't understand why others don't understand this? It seems simple and logical to me lol


I mean that we all do understand, and know that there is a difference, but 'Covid Test' has become the general term used,(this is where the semantics bit comes in) and what was decided at the time would convey to people the importance of getting tested and the serious need to isolate. Read my post on the subject on the other thread, life's too short to repeat it all here.


----------



## Amity Island (Oct 15, 2021)

Robin said:


> I mean that we all do understand, and know that there is a difference, but 'Covid Test' has become the general term used,(this is where the semantics bit comes in) and what was decided at the time would convey to people the importance of getting tested and the serious need to isolate. Read my post on the subject on the other thread, life's too short to repeat it all here.


Yes, but @Eddy Edson (who's post you liked and responded to) made the effort to post an insulting "Or some equally stupid position" in response to my valid and thruthful response. Why would anyone do that? Insult someone for making a honest and truthful valid point? I don't think it's kind or in anyway necessary to make these responses.

And as you said "Amity Island clings to the strict definition of the tests, which is that they test for the SARS-coV-2 virus". 
@Robin I don't cling to anything, that is what the tests are actually for.

@everydayupsanddowns before you ask me, I'm not getting upset, but this is appalling behaviour, totally uncalled for. If someone doesn't agree, at least give a valid reason for not agreeing, not an insulting or dismissive response.


----------



## Robin (Oct 15, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Yes, but @Eddy Edson (who's post you liked and responded to) made the effort to post an insulting "Or some equally stupid position" in response to my valid and thruthful response


I took the 'stupid' bit to refer to the futility of raking up the whole argument again here, it wasn’t my intention to ‘like' a post that had caused offence.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 15, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> @everydayupsanddowns before you ask me, I'm not getting upset, but this is appalling behaviour, totally uncalled for. If someone doesn't agree, at least give a valid reason for not agreeing, not an insulting or dismissive response



I think people are perhaps frustrated because this discussion has taken place before, and during which you agreed to differ.

My personal position would be that in terms of clear messaging it is actually quite important that the public understand these tests in the context of COVID-19 rather that the specific virus which is being tested for.

Not least because high enough levels of the virus to provide a positive test suggest that an individual is capable of spreading the virus whether or not they have symptoms. And the spread of the virus (which we are testing for) directly correlates to people developing COVID-19, some of whom will have a mild illness, and some of whom will have a severe illness and may even die.

In a technical sense it may well be the disease that comes from the virus that kills them rather than the virus itself, but I don’t really feel the difference (and stressing the difference in public health announcements) would do anything other than cause confusion, worry, guideline resistance, and generally muddy the waters.

Members of the public call Covid 19 ‘the virus’. So the test showing they are positive for the virus sarscov2 (even if they exhibit no symptoms) is sufficient to make it worthwhile then isolating from others, especially the vulnerable, as they have virus to spread which could lead to Covid 19 in others.

Sometimes all there needs to be to prevent people taking appropriate and precautionary action to protect others around them is just the hint of a little doubt and confusion. Reports do mention sarscov2, when stories need that detail. But for the vast majority of the time the disease COVID-19 and the virus which causes it should be referred to in as clear and simple a way as possible.


----------



## Amity Island (Oct 15, 2021)

Robin said:


> I took the 'stupid' bit to refer to the futility of raking up the whole argument again here, it wasn’t my intention to ‘like' a post that had caused offence.


Hi @Robin

That's what I can't get my head around, there is no argument to rake up. I've said there is no test for covid19 and there isn't. Nobody needs to revert to sarcasm or dissmissive comments to try and prove otherwise.

I understand your view on it, being about a simple holistic public message, but all I stated was a truthful statement, I am not commenting on the public message, just that people should be fully informed (not unaware) that the test doesn't tell them if they have covid19. Personally (not that my opinion counts lol)  I'd rather them use the term Sarscov2 tests rather than covid19, then there is no doubt or confusion about what they are testing for, it make no difference to the public message. The message is still the same, wear a mask, keep your distance, isloate, wash your hands etc etc


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Oct 15, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> I've said there is no test for covid19 and there isn't.


That's true in some sense, but it doesn't seem a very useful sense.

Nobody's getting confused with the lateral flow tests being called "COVID-19 Self-Test (Rapid Antigen Test)", for example. Nobody getting a positive test from such a thing is going to think they are really sick, or are inevitably going to get really sick (unless they have some separate reason for thinking that's likely). They understand it's just a test for the virus, and a positive test makes it likely they're infectious (even if they're asymptomatic).


----------



## Amity Island (Oct 15, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> I think people are perhaps frustrated because this discussion has taken place before, and during which you agreed to differ.
> 
> My personal position would be that in terms of clear messaging it is actually quite important that the public understand these tests in the context of COVID-19 rather that the specific virus which is being tested for.
> 
> ...


Hi @everydayupsanddowns 

Thanks for your reply. I get your message about the keeping it simple etc, but I also think it equally important people do know the difference. I'm finding people don't actually have any idea at all of the difference. I'm not suggesting the general message should change in anyway, still need to isolate, wash hands, masks, social distancing, testing etc but surely far better to use the right term rather than the wrong one. I'm seeing the "covid19" test been quoted in medical studies too! 

When things get overly simplified or wrongly labbelled, things get missed. That "stay at home" mantra is a good example. People died unnessarily from the overly simplified message. It should of been made clear that it's "stay at home" _unless_ you need urgent medical care.


----------



## Amity Island (Oct 15, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> That's true in some sense, but it doesn't seem a very useful sense.


Hi Bruce,

I'm seeing this "covid19" test in medical journals and scientific articles too! It's not just the public messages. It's not right.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Oct 15, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> I'm seeing this "covid19" test in medical journals and scientific articles too!


I'm still not seeing the problem. Nobody's confused by this, are they?

This is surely just language changing in the way that languages do. At the beginning it was "coronavirus" or "the coronavirus" until it got a specific name, and now it's mostly "COVID-19", which people use to refer to the virus and the state of people who are infected by it (whether significantly sick or not), and usually context determines the specific meaning without much problem.


----------



## Burylancs (Oct 16, 2021)

Northerner said:


> Britain’s early handling of the coronavirus pandemic was one of the worst public health failures in UK history, with ministers and scientists taking a “fatalistic” approach that exacerbated the death toll, a landmark inquiry has found.
> 
> “Groupthink”, evidence of British exceptionalism and a deliberately “slow and gradualist” approach meant the UK fared “significantly worse” than other countries, according to the 151-page “Coronavirus: lessons learned to date” report led by two former Conservative ministers.
> https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ed-of-impact-on-uk-four-years-before-pandemic
> ...



And nobody has been sacked, Resigned or been taken out and shot.  The press have got rid of it already.


----------



## Amity Island (Oct 16, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> I'm still not seeing the problem. Nobody's confused by this, are they?
> 
> This is surely just language changing in the way that languages do. At the beginning it was "coronavirus" or "the coronavirus" until it got a specific name, and now it's mostly "COVID-19", which people use to refer to the virus and the state of people who are infected by it (whether significantly sick or not), and usually context determines the specific meaning without much problem.


Hi Bruce, the problem is, all I stated was a fundmentally truthful statement about what someone in a national newspaper said and _I_ end up getting sarky comments _rather_ then factual challenges proving otherwise. What I said was not an opinion. It's not what I think. It's not my take on it. I didn't make the test. I didn't name the test, so I am not going to be challenged for it. It's got absolutely nothing to do with me. It is a simple fact. It was challenged as if it was _me_ that was the problem. If you read the thread again you will see what I mean.

If the governement as part of their public message want to bundle all the terms into one that's up to them, all I am saying is there is no test for covid19 and anyobody in the press, journals, science papers (worth their salt that is) should know what the tests are for and should show this clearly.


----------



## Burylancs (Oct 16, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Hi Bruce, the problem is, all I stated was a fundmentally truthful statement about what someone in a national newspaper said and _I_ end up getting sarky comments _rather_ then factual challenges proving otherwise. What I said was not an opinion. It's not what I think. It's not my take on it. I didn't make the test. I didn't name the test, so I am not going to be challenged for it. It's got absolutely nothing to do with me. It is a simple fact. It was challenged as if it was _me_ that was the problem. If you read the thread again you will see what I mean.
> 
> If the governement as part of their public message want to bundle all the terms into one that's up to them, all I am saying is there is no test for covid19 and anyobody in the press, journals, science papers (worth their salt that is) should know what the tests are for and should show this clearly.


In much the same way you could say, I suppose, that there are no tests for diabetes.


----------



## Amity Island (Oct 16, 2021)

Burylancs said:


> In much the same way you could say, I suppose, that there are no tests for diabetes.


Hi @Burylancs 

And we "diabetics" tend to get bundled into the "Diabetes" fits all phrase. I would also take issue with any Doctor, Scientist, publication etc not using the correct terminology here too. Type 1 is not the same thing as Type 2. If I saw anyone claiming otherwise for ease of use or to avoid confusing the public, I'd be questioning their credibility too. It's ok to use the word diabetes as a public message, but outside of that, people need to know the difference.


----------



## Burylancs (Oct 16, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Hi @Burylancs
> 
> And we "diabetics" tend to get bundled into the "Diabetes" fits all phrase. I would also take issue with any Doctor, Scientist, publication etc not using the correct terminology here too. Type 1 is not the same thing as Type 2. If I saw anyone claiming otherwise for ease of use or to avoid confusing the public, I'd be questioning their credibility too. It's ok to use the word diabetes as a public message, but outside of that, people need to know the difference.



And yet the terms Type1 and Type 2 are only very young terms, adopted by WHO in 1985 I believe. Before that what we know as Type 1 was IDDM (Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus) or Juvenile Diabetes ( whatever age you were). Type 2 was NIDDM (Non Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus ) or Maturity Onset Diabetes. I had never heard of Tyoe 2 Diabetes when the Consultant diagnosed me with it in December 1992. It had always been 'Sugar Diabetes'. An echo of which name still lingers and confuses People. In 1985 the WHO did discuss separating the two conditions with what became 'Type 1' continuing as Diabetes and what became 'Type 2' being Cellulosis or some such. You still occasionally hear suggestions they should be separated. It might help with Type 2s not being treated as poor relations all the time.


----------



## Amity Island (Oct 16, 2021)

Burylancs said:


> And yet the terms Type1 and Type 2 are only very young terms, adopted by WHO in 1985 I believe. Before that what we know as Type 1 was IDDM (Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus) or Juvenile Diabetes ( whatever age you were). Type 2 was NIDDM (Non Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus ) or Maturity Onset Diabetes. I had never heard of Tyoe 2 Diabetes when the Consultant diagnosed me with it in December 1992. It had always been 'Sugar Diabetes'. An echo of which name still lingers and confuses People. In 1985 the WHO did discuss separating the two conditions with what became 'Type 1' continuing as Diabetes and what became 'Type 2' being Cellulosis or some such. You still occasionally hear suggestions they should be separated. It might help with Type 2s not being treated as poor relations all the time.


Interesting and succinct @Burylancs


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 17, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Hi Bruce, the problem is, all I stated was a fundmentally truthful statement about what someone in a national newspaper said and _I_ end up getting sarky comments _rather_ then factual challenges proving otherwise. What I said was not an opinion. It's not what I think. It's not my take on it. I didn't make the test. I didn't name the test, so I am not going to be challenged for it. It's got absolutely nothing to do with me. It is a simple fact. It was challenged as if it was _me_ that was the problem. If you read the thread again you will see what I mean.



Sorry to read that you feel you have received sarcastic comments. I think perhaps that partly revolves around the phrasing and presentation rather than what you said? Something that the forum experiences often. Sometimes things aren’t read in the way that was intended.

Consider perhaps the possible differences in interpretation between someone posting:



> ’Despite being one of the first countries to develop a test for Covid in January 2020’
> 
> 
> 
> There is no test for covid.



or alternatively:


> ’Despite being one of the first countries to develop a test for Covid in January 2020’
> 
> Strictly speaking, of course, they should be talking about a test for the sarscov2 virus which can lead to Covid-19, since there isn’t a specific test for Covid-19 itself.



The first can be interpreted as “there is no test which is helpful in the context of the global pandemic” “testing is useless” or even “I don’t believe in testing”. Particularly with the rolleyes emoji?

The second makes it clearer that it is a technical issue about the language used around the nature of the tests that is your focus, rather than the testing itself?


----------



## Burylancs (Oct 17, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Sorry to read that you feel you have received sarcastic comments. I think perhaps that partly revolves around the phrasing and presentation rather than what you said? Something that the forum experiences often. Sometimes things aren’t read in the way that was intended.
> 
> Consider perhaps the possible differences in interpretation between someone posting:
> 
> ...


And of course we frequently hear that the Earth orbits the Sun. It doesn't. The Earth , the Sun and all the objects in the Solar System are in orbit around the Centre of Gravity ( barycentre) of the Solar System. Which just happens to lie 5000 miles off the centre of the Sun.  Just saying. I'll get my tin helmet on and hide in the trenches, expecting to be shouted down like Amity Island.


----------



## Amity Island (Oct 17, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Sorry to read that you feel you have received sarcastic comments. I think perhaps that partly revolves around the phrasing and presentation rather than what you said? Something that the forum experiences often. Sometimes things aren’t read in the way that was intended.
> 
> Consider perhaps the possible differences in interpretation between someone posting:
> 
> ...


@everydayupsanddowns I didn't just "feel" that I received sarcastic comments, I did; and it all started with someone else jumping in to a question that was left for me.

If @Robin had done the right thing and let others reply for themselves (which I am quite capable of doing) to @Sally71 instead of jumping in with some sarcasm, this thread wouldn't have gone off topic and we wouldn't be having this conversation. I don't need a lesson in how to use emoji's or how to phrase my communications as there is nothing there to take offence from and as I said, I didn't even get the chance to answer the question raised.

I don't need to explain anything else. My comment _wasn't_ aimed at a particular member of the forum (I don't use online forums to insult others), it was simply a general exasperation at the incredible level of ignorance in the media on what the tests are for.

Please can we let this go now? I've not done anything wrong.

Thanks.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 17, 2021)

I think it best to lock this thread as the discussion has become circular.


----------

