Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
By Paul Waugh of Huffpost UK
Whenever a government is in trouble, it’s not always the big shifts to look out for. The subtle changes of often just as much of interest. Yesterday, Matt Hancock introduced the No.10 press conference with the words: “We’re going to do things slightly differently today. I’m going to go through the charts.” The charts had also changed (no transport graphs).
And today, the health secretary again read out the statistics on tests, cases and deaths, “in keeping with the new format”. That new format basically means the minister now reads out the figures - figures that were previously the preserve of the medics and scientists. Could it be that those independent advisers have decided they would rather not do that bit any more?
Well, few would blame them after today’s scathing assessment by the UK Statistics Authority of the way the government has presented its stats on testing. The letter from chairman Sir David Norgrove was very strongly worded, referring to “misleading”, “inadequate”, “incomplete” data that is now “often mistrusted”.
His letter blew away the fiction that somehow it was OK to classify test swabs posted out as tests carried out. This fiction was first exposed by the Health Service Journal just before Hancock miraculously hit his 100,000 daily tests target for the end of April, but thanks to its endorsement by people like Prof John Newton many people moved on. Today, Newton himself had to admit “we are happy to report the numbers in any way we are asked to..”
Given that the public are more likely to go to a drive-thru McDonald’s (it reopened 168 more today) than to go to a drive-thru testing centre miles from their home, the home testing kits are seen as a key route to controlling this virus. The problem is that we have little clue how many are being returned or even properly administere
If there was any doubt about how these posted swabs skew the figures, today’s stats underlined it again. Of the 135,000 tests classed as conducted, almost exactly a third of the total (44,758) came from tests posted out. Without this sleight of hand, even April’s 100k target would not be met. More encouraging is the 205,000 capacity figure, but we still lack detail on how many posted tests are actually completed.
Of course, the bigger picture is the number of deaths. Today, they hit 39,369, so in a few days (maybe two) the UK will cross the awful milestone of 40,000 deaths. That would be double what chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance told us on March 17 would be “a good outcome” for mortality figures (20,000, he said).
And that’s just DHSC death totals. If you look at today’s new ONS death total, the figure is 48,106 (up to May 22). Worse still, the ‘excess deaths’ figure reported by the UK’s own official statisticians now stands at 62,000. That’s three times Vallance’s ‘good outcome’. When the chief scientist came out with his line at the start of the pandemic, many wondered what a bad outcome would look like. Well, 62,000 (and rising) looks pretty horrifi
Another subtle change that became more obvious today is the way No.10 has tried to shift the goalposts on its route of the lockdown. The Nando’s-style chart system featured varying alert levels from what you could call peri-peri hot risk (orange) of high transmission to the medium (yellow) of the virus just being ‘in general circulation
The PM himself actually told us in his TV address a few weeks ago that: "If the alert level won't allow it, we will simply wait and go on until we have got it right." He then said that the UK was coming down from Alert Level 4 to Alert Level 3. Oh, and his masterplan stated explicitly: “The JBC [Joint Biosecurity Centre] will be responsible for setting the new Covid-19 Alert level to communicate the current level of risk clearly to the public.”
But No.10 finally coughed today that things had changed. “In terms of the setting of the alert level, it is ultimately for the chief medical officers who are informed by the data which has been collected, collated and analysed by JBC,” the PM’s spokesman told us. So why are we still at Alert Level 4? Well, as the BBC reported, those chief medical officers decided last week to keep us there.
Despite all that, Boris Johnson still went ahead with its June 1 ‘easements’ because it had met its other condition: meeting its five tests on the virus.
Perhaps the biggest problem of all is that the ‘plateau’ of cases is longer than thought. Today, ‘Professor Lockdown’ himself, Neil Ferguson, warned “the level of transmission and number of cases will remain relatively flat between now and September”.
The chief suspicion must be that the PM thinks the public can’t wait that long in Covid lockdown limbo. And that he is so determined to get the UK out of lockdown that warnings from medical officers, from the statistics watchdog and even members of his own Sage group of scientists are being swept aside.
No wonder those No.10 press conferences are being cut back to weekdays. Some wonder how long will it be before they become once-a-week affairs. And what's the most cynical way to avoid your own goals as well as those of your opponents? Don't just shift the goalposts, pull them down altogether.
Whenever a government is in trouble, it’s not always the big shifts to look out for. The subtle changes of often just as much of interest. Yesterday, Matt Hancock introduced the No.10 press conference with the words: “We’re going to do things slightly differently today. I’m going to go through the charts.” The charts had also changed (no transport graphs).
And today, the health secretary again read out the statistics on tests, cases and deaths, “in keeping with the new format”. That new format basically means the minister now reads out the figures - figures that were previously the preserve of the medics and scientists. Could it be that those independent advisers have decided they would rather not do that bit any more?
Well, few would blame them after today’s scathing assessment by the UK Statistics Authority of the way the government has presented its stats on testing. The letter from chairman Sir David Norgrove was very strongly worded, referring to “misleading”, “inadequate”, “incomplete” data that is now “often mistrusted”.
His letter blew away the fiction that somehow it was OK to classify test swabs posted out as tests carried out. This fiction was first exposed by the Health Service Journal just before Hancock miraculously hit his 100,000 daily tests target for the end of April, but thanks to its endorsement by people like Prof John Newton many people moved on. Today, Newton himself had to admit “we are happy to report the numbers in any way we are asked to..”
Given that the public are more likely to go to a drive-thru McDonald’s (it reopened 168 more today) than to go to a drive-thru testing centre miles from their home, the home testing kits are seen as a key route to controlling this virus. The problem is that we have little clue how many are being returned or even properly administere
If there was any doubt about how these posted swabs skew the figures, today’s stats underlined it again. Of the 135,000 tests classed as conducted, almost exactly a third of the total (44,758) came from tests posted out. Without this sleight of hand, even April’s 100k target would not be met. More encouraging is the 205,000 capacity figure, but we still lack detail on how many posted tests are actually completed.
Of course, the bigger picture is the number of deaths. Today, they hit 39,369, so in a few days (maybe two) the UK will cross the awful milestone of 40,000 deaths. That would be double what chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance told us on March 17 would be “a good outcome” for mortality figures (20,000, he said).
And that’s just DHSC death totals. If you look at today’s new ONS death total, the figure is 48,106 (up to May 22). Worse still, the ‘excess deaths’ figure reported by the UK’s own official statisticians now stands at 62,000. That’s three times Vallance’s ‘good outcome’. When the chief scientist came out with his line at the start of the pandemic, many wondered what a bad outcome would look like. Well, 62,000 (and rising) looks pretty horrifi
Another subtle change that became more obvious today is the way No.10 has tried to shift the goalposts on its route of the lockdown. The Nando’s-style chart system featured varying alert levels from what you could call peri-peri hot risk (orange) of high transmission to the medium (yellow) of the virus just being ‘in general circulation
The PM himself actually told us in his TV address a few weeks ago that: "If the alert level won't allow it, we will simply wait and go on until we have got it right." He then said that the UK was coming down from Alert Level 4 to Alert Level 3. Oh, and his masterplan stated explicitly: “The JBC [Joint Biosecurity Centre] will be responsible for setting the new Covid-19 Alert level to communicate the current level of risk clearly to the public.”
But No.10 finally coughed today that things had changed. “In terms of the setting of the alert level, it is ultimately for the chief medical officers who are informed by the data which has been collected, collated and analysed by JBC,” the PM’s spokesman told us. So why are we still at Alert Level 4? Well, as the BBC reported, those chief medical officers decided last week to keep us there.
Despite all that, Boris Johnson still went ahead with its June 1 ‘easements’ because it had met its other condition: meeting its five tests on the virus.
Perhaps the biggest problem of all is that the ‘plateau’ of cases is longer than thought. Today, ‘Professor Lockdown’ himself, Neil Ferguson, warned “the level of transmission and number of cases will remain relatively flat between now and September”.
The chief suspicion must be that the PM thinks the public can’t wait that long in Covid lockdown limbo. And that he is so determined to get the UK out of lockdown that warnings from medical officers, from the statistics watchdog and even members of his own Sage group of scientists are being swept aside.
No wonder those No.10 press conferences are being cut back to weekdays. Some wonder how long will it be before they become once-a-week affairs. And what's the most cynical way to avoid your own goals as well as those of your opponents? Don't just shift the goalposts, pull them down altogether.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 1
|
By:
The first cut wont hurt at all .......
|