#COVID19 | Page 82 | Vital Football

#COVID19

MaltaRed

Vital 1st Team Regular
You forgot to post this from your Boszi account
Why you say that? Are you happy how things are and where handled by your government? I tell you what my friend, 80% of the cases we have in Malta are from people that came from the UK... at the time when Boris kept football grounds open for thousands of fans and wanted to beat this virus buy herd immunity.... and you are saying that what I am saying is conspiracy theory !!! ... rewind three weeks and I guess if someone would have told you that the virus was already doing the rounds in the UK, you would have told him to sign in on his Boszi account ...
 

JC21

Vital Squad Member
BRITAIN HAD A HEAD START ON COVID-19, BUT OUR LEADERS SQUANDERED IT
“The government’s dithering and lack of transparency will cost many thousands of lives”.

By Professor Devi Sridhar, Chair of Global Health at the University of Edinburgh

“In the UK we have had nine weeks to listen, learn and prepare. We have had nine weeks to run outbreak simulations, set up supply chains to ensure sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilators, and bring about the availability of rapid, cheap tests. We have had nine weeks to establish algorithms to support contact tracing, and start mass awareness campaigns not only about hand-washing, but about the risks that the virus would pose to social and economic activity if not taken seriously by all.

Countries such as Senegal were doing this in January.

THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT ABANDON ITS CATASTROPHIC ‘HERD IMMUNITY‘ POLICY FOR 9 WEEKS.

On. 12 March, Boris Johnson announced that all minor testing and contact tracing would stop and passive self-isolation would be introduced for those with symptoms, all part of a herd immunity strategy supposedly endorsed by the “best science”. After a backlash from scientists, the government clarified that it was not explicitly pursuing herd immunity, but would be taking measures at the “right time guided by the evidence”, all according to a plan which it did not share with the public.

On 17 March, Imperial College released a study noting that it had revised the model the government had been using, and stating that suppressing the virus was in fact the best way to avoid a vast number of people dying. The earlier model did not include the ICU data shared in the Lancet on 24 January. Instead, it was similar, but much later information from Italy, that changed their recommendation.

So, at the end of the week, the UK government did a 180-degree turn, reversing what it had said only days previously. It made the decision to take the same measures other countries had in order to delay the spread of virus: closing schools except for the children of key workers, closing pubs and other gathering places, asking households to self-isolate for 14 days and focusing on scaling up testing to 25,000 tests per day over the next month.

However, capacity issues and lost time mean that testing will take time to ramp up, PPE supply chains are strained, and all while patient numbers continue to increase as we follow Italy’s path.

The twists and turns described above have created a climate where the public do not trust that the government is responding in their best interests. Many cannot say what the government’s strategy is, or are confused about how serious coronavirus is for their health. Communication during a crisis must be clear, transparent, open and responsive. The confusion over herd immunity, for example, has made people reasonably think that the government wants everyone to get the virus to protect the economy, that it is not taking more decisive action because this is not a serious threat, or that the government does not know what it is doing.

WE HAD A CHOICE...

We had a choice early on in the UK’s trajectory to go down the South Korean path of mass testing, isolating carriers of the virus (50% of whom are asymptomatic), tracing all contacts to ensure they isolate as well, and at the same time taking soft measures to delay the spread. Instead, we watched and waited, and whether it was academic navel-gazing, political infighting or a deliberate choice to minimise economic disruption over saving lives, we have ended up in a position where we are now closer to the Italy scenario than anticipated, and are faced with taking more and more drastic measures.

Full article below.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/23/britain-covid-19-head-start-squandered
 

Will.NFFC

Vital 1st Team Regular
Please don’t believe the fake news around retailers selling this. Probably shouldn’t share but had some kits sent to me with CE mark and alleged approval but nobody actually knows what the tests to dictate whether it’s reliable. We’re following government protocol at present and have released an internal statement stating the articles are garbage.
 
I've just heard a woman on a radio Nottingham pleading and construction firms for the right kind of face masks (FFP3) because the paper ones are useless. She works in Netherfield at a GP's surgery. Anyone that thinks that this tory govt is doing a decent job hasn't got a clue.

We've been let down since 2010. And our media needs to take a hard look at itself. Because they're also responsible for holding the govt to account.
 

strettea red

Vital Reserves Team
BRITAIN HAD A HEAD START ON COVID-19, BUT OUR LEADERS SQUANDERED IT
“The government’s dithering and lack of transparency will cost many thousands of lives”.

By Professor Devi Sridhar, Chair of Global Health at the University of Edinburgh

“In the UK we have had nine weeks to listen, learn and prepare. We have had nine weeks to run outbreak simulations, set up supply chains to ensure sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilators, and bring about the availability of rapid, cheap tests. We have had nine weeks to establish algorithms to support contact tracing, and start mass awareness campaigns not only about hand-washing, but about the risks that the virus would pose to social and economic activity if not taken seriously by all.

Countries such as Senegal were doing this in January.

THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT ABANDON ITS CATASTROPHIC ‘HERD IMMUNITY‘ POLICY FOR 9 WEEKS.

On. 12 March, Boris Johnson announced that all minor testing and contact tracing would stop and passive self-isolation would be introduced for those with symptoms, all part of a herd immunity strategy supposedly endorsed by the “best science”. After a backlash from scientists, the government clarified that it was not explicitly pursuing herd immunity, but would be taking measures at the “right time guided by the evidence”, all according to a plan which it did not share with the public.

On 17 March, Imperial College released a study noting that it had revised the model the government had been using, and stating that suppressing the virus was in fact the best way to avoid a vast number of people dying. The earlier model did not include the ICU data shared in the Lancet on 24 January. Instead, it was similar, but much later information from Italy, that changed their recommendation.

So, at the end of the week, the UK government did a 180-degree turn, reversing what it had said only days previously. It made the decision to take the same measures other countries had in order to delay the spread of virus: closing schools except for the children of key workers, closing pubs and other gathering places, asking households to self-isolate for 14 days and focusing on scaling up testing to 25,000 tests per day over the next month.

However, capacity issues and lost time mean that testing will take time to ramp up, PPE supply chains are strained, and all while patient numbers continue to increase as we follow Italy’s path.

The twists and turns described above have created a climate where the public do not trust that the government is responding in their best interests. Many cannot say what the government’s strategy is, or are confused about how serious coronavirus is for their health. Communication during a crisis must be clear, transparent, open and responsive. The confusion over herd immunity, for example, has made people reasonably think that the government wants everyone to get the virus to protect the economy, that it is not taking more decisive action because this is not a serious threat, or that the government does not know what it is doing.

WE HAD A CHOICE...

We had a choice early on in the UK’s trajectory to go down the South Korean path of mass testing, isolating carriers of the virus (50% of whom are asymptomatic), tracing all contacts to ensure they isolate as well, and at the same time taking soft measures to delay the spread. Instead, we watched and waited, and whether it was academic navel-gazing, political infighting or a deliberate choice to minimise economic disruption over saving lives, we have ended up in a position where we are now closer to the Italy scenario than anticipated, and are faced with taking more and more drastic measures.

Full article below.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/23/britain-covid-19-head-start-squandered
More reporting from the Fourth Estate.
 

JC21

Vital Squad Member
More reporting from the Fourth Estate.
I don't really see your point. It's another instance of it really makes no difference who is actualy reporting it, the important thing is the OPINION of Chair of Global Health at the University of Edinburgh. Now you can choose to agree or disagree with it but the fact that it was 'reported' in the 'fourth estate' is irrelevant.
 

ZedRed

Vital 1st Team Regular
I've just heard a woman on a radio Nottingham pleading and construction firms for the right kind of face masks (FFP3) because the paper ones are useless. She works in Netherfield at a GP's surgery. Anyone that thinks that this tory govt is doing a decent job hasn't got a clue.

We've been let down since 2010. And our media needs to take a hard look at itself. Because they're also responsible for holding the govt to account.
No, the media are responsible for deciding who the government is.
 

mao tse tung

Vital Football Hero
More reporting from the Fourth Estate.
Fourth Estate:
The term Fourth Estate or fourth power refers to the press and news media both in explicit capacity of advocacy and implicit ability to frame political issues. Though it is not formally recognized as a part of a political system, it wields significant indirect social influence.

So where do you draw the line between public interest and social influence?

Surely in this instance it would be remiss of the publication not to publish what they did.
 
BRITAIN HAD A HEAD START ON COVID-19, BUT OUR LEADERS SQUANDERED IT
“The government’s dithering and lack of transparency will cost many thousands of lives”.

By Professor Devi Sridhar, Chair of Global Health at the University of Edinburgh

“In the UK we have had nine weeks to listen, learn and prepare. We have had nine weeks to run outbreak simulations, set up supply chains to ensure sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilators, and bring about the availability of rapid, cheap tests. We have had nine weeks to establish algorithms to support contact tracing, and start mass awareness campaigns not only about hand-washing, but about the risks that the virus would pose to social and economic activity if not taken seriously by all.

Countries such as Senegal were doing this in January.

THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT ABANDON ITS CATASTROPHIC ‘HERD IMMUNITY‘ POLICY FOR 9 WEEKS.

On. 12 March, Boris Johnson announced that all minor testing and contact tracing would stop and passive self-isolation would be introduced for those with symptoms, all part of a herd immunity strategy supposedly endorsed by the “best science”. After a backlash from scientists, the government clarified that it was not explicitly pursuing herd immunity, but would be taking measures at the “right time guided by the evidence”, all according to a plan which it did not share with the public.

On 17 March, Imperial College released a study noting that it had revised the model the government had been using, and stating that suppressing the virus was in fact the best way to avoid a vast number of people dying. The earlier model did not include the ICU data shared in the Lancet on 24 January. Instead, it was similar, but much later information from Italy, that changed their recommendation.

So, at the end of the week, the UK government did a 180-degree turn, reversing what it had said only days previously. It made the decision to take the same measures other countries had in order to delay the spread of virus: closing schools except for the children of key workers, closing pubs and other gathering places, asking households to self-isolate for 14 days and focusing on scaling up testing to 25,000 tests per day over the next month.

However, capacity issues and lost time mean that testing will take time to ramp up, PPE supply chains are strained, and all while patient numbers continue to increase as we follow Italy’s path.

The twists and turns described above have created a climate where the public do not trust that the government is responding in their best interests. Many cannot say what the government’s strategy is, or are confused about how serious coronavirus is for their health. Communication during a crisis must be clear, transparent, open and responsive. The confusion over herd immunity, for example, has made people reasonably think that the government wants everyone to get the virus to protect the economy, that it is not taking more decisive action because this is not a serious threat, or that the government does not know what it is doing.

WE HAD A CHOICE...

We had a choice early on in the UK’s trajectory to go down the South Korean path of mass testing, isolating carriers of the virus (50% of whom are asymptomatic), tracing all contacts to ensure they isolate as well, and at the same time taking soft measures to delay the spread. Instead, we watched and waited, and whether it was academic navel-gazing, political infighting or a deliberate choice to minimise economic disruption over saving lives, we have ended up in a position where we are now closer to the Italy scenario than anticipated, and are faced with taking more and more drastic measures.

Full article below.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/23/britain-covid-19-head-start-squandered
Yes why didnt the prof post this under his bozi account?
 

Apollyon

Vital Champions League
I tell you what Popey, we in social care are clashing heads with your lot. Kids with EHCPs that need the routine and structure are being refused access to school because "they're safe at home". Today's announcement should help us get kids back in education but on the whole, 3 schools we are dealing with have been shit and pretty much shut up shop on day 1 for LAC.
 

Pope John XXIII

Vital Football Legend
I tell you what Popey, we in social care are clashing heads with your lot. Kids with EHCPs that need the routine and structure are being refused access to school because "they're safe at home". Today's announcement should help us get kids back in education but on the whole, 3 schools we are dealing with have been shit and pretty much shut up shop on day 1 for LAC.
Not sure what announcement you mean.

The instructions from the government are that vulnerable children can come to school. I'm not sure whether that includes EHCPs or not. I think so.

The reality is that for many of these children, they are safer at home. Our traditional view of what constitutes "safe" is out of the window. A crowded school and being around other people is not safe. They are going to get the virus and they are going to give it to others. And young people are starting to die. The majority of vulnerable children (admittedly, not all) are not facing as direct a threat to their health and life as that at home.

Kids with EHCPs are different. They may be perfectly safe at home if their needs are educational. Yes, they need the routine. My son needs the school routine too and would have had an EHCP come through if not for this. But that is secondary to this virus. I wouldn't dream of sending my son into a school that a) is an environment where he might catch it and b) absolutely cannot provide him the 1-1 education he normally would have.

It's worth pointing out that what they are getting now in school is not education. It can't be. They should be getting education remotely. At our place the few children coming in are using the computers to do the work being set weekly. There are not necessarily the staff available at the moment to cater for the special needs of children. Most of these children have a regular TA. My son has two. If they are self isolating or sick, there isn't necessarily the staff for him.

My school is down to about 35% staff available now. Nearly 30% are off for 12 weeks because of themselves or someone they live with having underlying conditions. Management is down to two thirds. In our trust, there are only two heads still standing.

Having said that, any school refusing your kids (as opposed to advising against them attending) is going against the government guidance, especially if it's children in care. We are trying our best to keep in touch with those children.

Although guidance changes frequently. My daughter's school announced that both parents have to be key workers yesterday. I have not seen anything official to say that has changed. So no idea.