Lockdown easing?

[Ruggertech]

Check out the photos from today's Mirror online of people queuing outside pubs and bars in England yesterday, think we are in for a massive spike in a couple of weeks. Shocking.

Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk

[Saint-Just]

Yes, I had to bring Spain in because you weren’t following apparently.

No, I’m not apologising for the government, why does everybody have to be ‘on a side’ with you?

That’s the problem with the prevalent posters on this thread, every statement about the virus and our response to it is politically loaded.

Even before you decided to take issue with my post, I’d already said I’d prefer we were approaching things differently, and I also said it’s not over. No need to berate anybody for things they haven’t said.

But no, I don’t see much difference between the U.K., Spain and Italy with regard to deaths per million of the population, despite our apparent different approaches. Logic says there are other things at play here then, other than when and how you lockdown.

OK, so you choose 2 latin countries, with different social norms, who also happen to be the first ones hit by this crisis and have the highest death toll in Europe bar us, and ignore Germany, who is much closer culturally, has a comparable population and a much lower death count. And you say logic tells you other things are at play...

You know what? You are correct: lockdown, in itself isn't the ultimate solution to the problem. It isn't in itself a solution. It's a way to halt the pandemic temporarily. It is all it is. Then, we can try and control it to avoid a new flare up, when actively looking for ways to treat it and possibly vaccinate against it.
The daily death count is a decent indication on the effects of the lockdown, and allow to ignore the overall count. A ratio of 1 to 5 between the country you chose for comparison and here IS significant proof that lockdown has had more influence on them than on us.

As to politicising, you are also undoubtedly correct. I will however reply that it is fundamentally a political problem. What incensed me was the flat refusal to acknowledge mistakes were made, and apologise accordingly, when indeed even Macron (and trust me, I don't like him either ) did.

[number2]

In the immortal words of Kenneth Wolstenholme "they think it's all over"
at a local supermarket no queuing outside, no social distancing inside, and only me in a ppe mask, second wave - on your marks - get set,,,

Check out the photos from today's Mirror online of people queuing outside pubs and bars in England yesterday, think we are in for a massive spike in a couple of weeks. Shocking.

Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk

Pretty much guaranteed .

[Tooks]

OK, so you choose 2 latin countries, with different social norms, who also happen to be the first ones hit by this crisis and have the highest death toll in Europe bar us, and ignore Germany, who is much closer culturally, has a comparable population and a much lower death count. And you say logic tells you other things are at play...

You know what? You are correct: lockdown, in itself isn't the ultimate solution to the problem. It isn't in itself a solution. It's a way to halt the pandemic temporarily. It is all it is. Then, we can try and control it to avoid a new flare up, when actively looking for ways to treat it and possibly vaccinate against it.
The daily death count is a decent indication on the effects of the lockdown, and allow to ignore the overall count. A ratio of 1 to 5 between the country you chose for comparison and here IS significant proof that lockdown has had more influence on them than on us.

As to politicising, you are also undoubtedly correct. I will however reply that it is fundamentally a political problem. What incensed me was the flat refusal to acknowledge mistakes were made, and apologise accordingly, when indeed even Macron (and trust me, I don't like him either ) did.

Yes, I did, because somebody posted that our ‘death rate’ was by far the worst in Europe. The facts are that it isn’t, but nor is it the best. If we shouldn’t be making excuses for the UK then we shouldn’t be making excuses for Spain or Italy either.

Germany seem to have implemented a text book response, I don’t think anybody is arguing they haven’t, and does indeed show there is far more to tackling this in the best way possible even after a lock down.

I’m very concerned about what happens next here in the UK, be of no doubt.

[ralphy]

Fewer young adults sticking to lockdown rules, UK study shows

Complete compliance with coronavirus restrictions has fallen to less than 50%

More than half of young adults are no longer sticking strictly to UK lockdown rules, according to a survey.

Researchers who questioned more than 90,000 adults found “complete” compliance with government safety measures, such as physical distancing and staying at home, had dropped in the past two weeks from an average of 70% of people to less than 60%.Less than 50% of people under 30 were “completely” complying with lockdown rules, according to the University College London (UCL) study, which looked at how adults were feeling about a range of issues during the pandemic. These included the lockdown, government advice, their overall wellbeing and mental health.

The lead author of the study, Dr Daisy Fancourt at the UCL’s epidemiology and healthcare unit, noted there had been “generally a very high” level of compliance.

The ongoing study, which was launched in the week before the lockdown, also found 95% of all adults and 92% of young people felt they were either “reasonable” or “good” at sticking to the measures.

The findings come alongside a decrease in confidence in the government in England since the easing of lockdown was announced on 10 May.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...dy-coronavirus

R

[Saint-Just]

Yes, I did, because somebody posted that our ‘death rate’ was by far the worst in Europe. The facts are that it isn’t, but nor is it the best. If we shouldn’t be making excuses for the UK then we shouldn’t be making excuses for Spain or Italy either.

Germany seem to have implemented a text book response, I don’t think anybody is arguing they haven’t, and does indeed show there is far more to tackling this in the best way possible even after a lock down.

I’m very concerned about what happens next here in the UK, be of no doubt.

The only excuse I'll make for Italy is that it hit them first, very hard as by the time they realised what it was the death toll and spread were catastrophic. But other European countries did not take heed, and wasted time. Most, if not all of them.

Time is an absolutely critical factor in any epidemic -let alone a pandemic. Borders should have been either closed or associated with compulsory quarantine: this thing comes from abroad and is highly contagious; what is difficult about understanding that stopping people coming from abroad WILL reduce contamination by avoiding the development of new clusters of infection?

Yes, the UK is a platform for travellers and millions of people travelled via the UK every week. So what? Do they travel now? No (although we still don't stop them... Jesus wept.)

[oldoakknives]

The only excuse I'll make for Italy is that it hit them first, very hard as by the time they realised what it was the death toll and spread were catastrophic. But other European countries did not take heed, and wasted time. Most, if not all of them.

Time is an absolutely critical factor in any epidemic -let alone a pandemic. Borders should have been either closed or associated with compulsory quarantine: this thing comes from abroad and is highly contagious; what is difficult about understanding that stopping people coming from abroad WILL reduce contamination by avoiding the development of new clusters of infection?

Yes, the UK is a platform for travellers and millions of people travelled via the UK every week. So what? Do they travel now? No (although we still don't stop them... Jesus wept.)

It's not often on here I've heard anyone admit that most other European countries did not take heed of the warning signs also. Borders should have been closed sooner and tighter. Although there would no doubt have been an outcry about people stranded abroad.

[Saint-Just]

It's not often on here I've heard anyone admit that most other European countries did not take heed of the warning signs also. Borders should have been closed sooner and tighter. Although there would no doubt have been an outcry about people stranded abroad.

I may be biased but I am not (consciously) intellectually dishonest. I also would have had no problem with letting foreigners stranded go, and repatriating nationals from abroad, provided they stuck to a strict quarantine for a fortnight.

[Nugget]

It's not often on here I've heard anyone admit that most other European countries did not take heed of the warning signs also. Borders should have been closed sooner and tighter. Although there would no doubt have been an outcry about people stranded abroad.

I agree with the view that borders should have been closed earlier. But one of (if not) the first world leaders to close their borders was Donald Trump in early March and he was attacked by China, the WHO, the medical and scientific community in the USA, the Guardian and UK media generally and I imagine most of the TZ-UK intelligentsia in the Bear Pit for so doing. Ever so slightly hypocritical for any of these people to be raising 'border control' as an issue now.

[oldoakknives]

I may be biased but I am not (consciously) intellectually dishonest. I also would have had no problem with letting foreigners stranded go, and repatriating nationals from abroad, provided they stuck to a strict quarantine for a fortnight.

I agree with you on both counts.

[oldoakknives]

I agree with the view that borders should have been closed earlier. But one of (if not) the first world leaders to close their borders was Donald Trump in early March and he was attacked by China, the WHO, the medical and scientific community in the USA, the Guardian and UK media generally and I imagine most of the TZ-UK intelligentsia in the Bear Pit for so doing. Ever so slightly hypocritical for any of these people to be raising 'border control' as an issue now.

Yes it does seem some actions are apparently in hindsight much more acceptable. And some critics at the time are now saying we should have been even more strict than the orange one was.

I see on the news this morning that front line healthcare workers in the UK will be able to take part in a worldwide clinical trial to see whether hydroxychloroquine, the malaria drug being used by Donald Trump, prevents coronavirus in some cases. Which seems to be a bit of a u-turn, given the outcry by medical professionals at the time telling us that it was already proven not to be effective, even detrimental to health. If it was true why bother putting people at risk now, if the answer is already known. Or perhaps they were a little quick to condemn it.

[Saint-Just]

I agree with the view that borders should have been closed earlier. But one of (if not) the first world leaders to close their borders was Donald Trump in early March and he was attacked by China, the WHO, the medical and scientific community in the USA, the Guardian and UK media generally and I imagine most of the TZ-UK intelligentsia in the Bear Pit for so doing. Ever so slightly hypocritical for any of these people to be raising 'border control' as an issue now.

I genuinely see no hypocrisy. First because you are making an assumption that you can't back up: Trump's blocking the border was a stupid and discriminatory border closure, not a precautionary one.

If you want to close your borders to stop the spreading of a virus, you close all your borders, from everywhere, or it's pointless.
Furthermore, we here did not have access to Cygnus, or to top scientists, including epidemiologists, to inform the decision takers to the consequences of the different options on the table. Interestingly, the reasoning behind this advice, and the different options given to the government are still clouded in secrecy, which is immensely damaging to the credibility of our leaders, and justifies unfortunately the loss of faith and civic disobedience that we are observing. Both with casual disregard of social distancing, and with people refusing to send their children back to school.

[ralphy]

I agree with the view that borders should have been closed earlier. But one of (if not) the first world leaders to close their borders was Donald Trump in early March...

He ordered the closure on Jan 31st (it came into effect on Feb 2nd) and subsequently claimed he 'closed it down to all of China'. But that was untrue, the closure only affected most foreign visitors arriving from China but not American citizens and the border remained open to freight from there.

He has also claimed the US 'was the first country to do so' but that is also untrue, Italy and North Korea had already done so.

R

[TheFlyingBanana]

I see on the news this morning that front line healthcare workers in the UK will be able to take part in a worldwide clinical trial to see whether hydroxychloroquine, the malaria drug being used by Donald Trump, prevents coronavirus in some cases. Which seems to be a bit of a u-turn, given the outcry by medical professionals at the time telling us that it was already proven not to be effective, even detrimental to health. If it was true why bother putting people at risk now, if the answer is already known. Or perhaps they were a little quick to condemn it.

Well, if Trump got lucky and was right on this (and let's be honest, it wouldn't be because of any deep medical or scientific knowledge he has), then great.

Presumably we can now hope that he will start injecting bleach and shoving a UV lamp up his Khyber so as to demonstrate he was right about that too.

[oldoakknives]

Well, if Trump got lucky and was right on this (and let's be honest, it wouldn't be because of any deep medical or scientific knowledge he has), then great.

Presumably we can now hope that he will start injecting bleach and shoving a UV lamp up his Khyber so as to demonstrate he was right about that too.

I think the fact Trump might have taken advice that turned out to be correct is not the point. The point is how many medical people said it was not worth trying and now seem to be backtracking.

As for your other fantasy, we know your feelings towards him, no need to keep signalling.

I don’t like him much either btw.

[Nugget]

He ordered the closure on Jan 31st (it came into effect on Feb 2nd) and subsequently claimed he 'closed it down to all of China'. But that was untrue, the closure only affected most foreign visitors arriving from China but not American citizens and the border remained open to freight from there.

He has also claimed the US 'was the first country to do so' but that is also untrue, Italy and North Korea had already done so.

R

You are right, he restricted entry into the USA from China on 31 January due to it being the epicentre of the virus and then banned travellers from Europe when it became the epicentre in early March. I was referring to the latter in my post above.

He was roundly criticised for both measures when they were logical and necessary. They were not "a stupid and discriminatory border closure, not a precautionary one". Freight is not as big a spreader of the virus as human beings so I have no problem with that. His one mistake was giving a pass to the UK and Ireland (as he mistakenly thought or was told we were doing better) when he should have banned the lot.

My point remains that it is a bit rich for those who lambasted him for shutting US borders to people from infected countries to turn around and criticise the British government for not doing it!

[Saint-Just]

You are right, he restricted entry into the USA from China on 31 January due to it being the epicentre of the virus and then banned travellers from Europe when it became the epicentre in early March. I was referring to the latter in my post above.

He was roundly criticised for both measures when they were logical and necessary. They were not "a stupid and discriminatory border closure, not a precautionary one". Freight is not as big a spreader of the virus as human beings so I have no problem with that. His one mistake was giving a pass to the UK and Ireland (as he mistakenly thought or was told we were doing better) when he should have banned the lot.

My point remains that it is a bit rich for those who lambasted him for shutting US borders to people from infected countries to turn around and criticise the British government for not doing it!

It was stupid because it was targeted and antagonistic, to say the least. Not only excluding the UK was idiotic, because it antagonises the other countries, but it allowed every passenger who wanted to go to the US an alternative route, thus potentially contaminating passengers going to the UK as well as taking their virus to the US.

If you are going to close your borders you close them all. not doing so only adds a few hours to the journey of those who want to get in.

Furthermore if you remember the chaos that followed in Chicago O'Hare, you'll understand why I say that the whole thing was amateurish and frankly not worth the effort.

On 27th Feb Sundial posted this in the Trump thread



reflecting his attitude to the virus. The thing is, while the "No virus" was wrong, everything else was right. Now the US have 93.500 dead, and counting.

[TheFlyingBanana]

Great to have a Trump supporter on the thread for balance... 😏

[Andyg]

I genuinely see no hypocrisy. First because you are making an assumption that you can't back up: Trump's blocking the border was a stupid and discriminatory border closure, not a precautionary one.

LMFAO! Epic whoosh!

[Saint-Just]

LMFAO! Epic whoosh!

Coming from you I can only take this as a compliment. Thank you.

[wileeeeeey]

[ryanb741]

Well according to this Oxford scientist we could come out of lockdown now and it would be fine as we are at herd immunity already factoring in recovered infections, people who are naturally immune and people who have immunity as a result of other infections. What would she know, she's only an epidemiologist.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...public-health/

Risky strategy and should not be adopted now due to impact of it being a wrong strategy but there has been confusion in places like Denmark why infection rates have been dramatically decreasing despite no lockdown for a month there. One hypothesis is that this disease is primarily spread by 'superspreaders' for reasons we dont understand and once they are taken out of the equation by having been infected and recovered then it dramatically lowers infection rates. All theory of course but might explain why London with an antibody rate of 17% of the population has virtually eradicated covid - might 17% antibodies plus those people who fought it off without antibodies plus those naturally immune plus those who have immunity via other coronavirus infections be enough for herd immunity? If so we should start to see Stockholm and New York have dramatic reductions in infections despite no lockdown (New York still locked down so let's see what happens when they aren't).

[oldoakknives]

Well according to this Oxford scientist we could come out of lockdown now and it would be fine as we are at herd immunity already factoring in recovered infections, people who are naturally immune and people who have immunity as a result of other infections. What would she know, she's only an epidemiologist.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...public-health/

Risky strategy and should not be adopted now due to impact of it being a wrong strategy but there has been confusion in places like Denmark why infection rates have been dramatically decreasing despite no lockdown for a month there. One hypothesis is that this disease is primarily spread by 'superspreaders' for reasons we dont understand and once they are taken out of the equation by having been infected and recovered then it dramatically lowers infection rates. All theory of course but might explain why London with an anybody rate of 17% of the population has virtually eradicated covid - might 17% antibodies plus those people who fought it off without antibodies plus those naturally immune plus those who have immunity via other coronavirus infections be enough for herd immunity? If so we should start to see Stockholm and New York have dramatic reductions in infections despite no lockdown (New York still locked down so let's see what happens when they aren't).

Is that the same Professor Sunetra Gupta who on March 24th said.............

"The new coronavirus may already have infected far more people in the UK than scientists had previously estimated — perhaps as much as half the population — according to modelling by researchers at the University of Oxford."


With this amendment to the article.........

"This article has been amended since original publication to clarify the fact that the modelling is controversial and its assumptions have been contested by other scientists."
https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-...f-41bea055720b

Another view on their research and modelling.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...ing-to-tell-us

[ryanb741]

Is that the same Professor Sunetra Gupta who on March 24th said.............

"The new coronavirus may already have infected far more people in the UK than scientists had previously estimated — perhaps as much as half the population — according to modelling by researchers at the University of Oxford."


With this amendment to the article.........

"This article has been amended since original publication to clarify the fact that the modelling is controversial and its assumptions have been contested by other scientists."
https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-...f-41bea055720b

Another view on their research and modelling.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...ing-to-tell-us

Yes same one. The University of Oxford Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology.

[Alansmithee]

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...gers_final.pdf

guidelines for EU airports.

[oldoakknives]

Yes same one. The University of Oxford Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology.

What conclusions do you draw from her theory then?

[ryanb741]

What conclusions do you draw from her theory then?

I don't draw any conclusions other than her hypothesis that herd immunity is the sum of various parts and not as binary as '65% need to be infected' was interesting, particularly as she is an epidemiologist and therefore arguably better placed than the scientists who argues with some of her hypothesis. She basically stated this virus is acting 'true to form' and already burning out. Whether that's true or not we don't know but I thought it might be useful to share her perspective here.

[oldoakknives]

I don't draw any conclusions other than her hypothesis that herd immunity is the sum of various parts and not as binary as '65% need to be infected' was interesting, particularly as she is an epidemiologist and therefore arguably better placed than the scientists who argues with some of her hypothesis. She basically stated this virus is acting 'true to form' and already burning out. Whether that's true or not we don't know but I thought it might be useful to share her perspective here.

Thanks, I just wondered if you thought it was more likely than other findings.

[ryanb741]

Thanks, I just wondered if you thought it was more likely than other findings.

TBH I find it unlikely we are anywhere near herd immunity but I did find it interesting what she hypothesised. We'll know for sure in a month I guess once we have some time out of lockdown

[ralphy]

You are right, he restricted entry into the USA from China on 31 January due to it being the epicentre of the virus and then banned travellers from Europe when it became the epicentre in early March. I was referring to the latter in my post above.

He was roundly criticised for both measures when they were logical and necessary. They were not "a stupid and discriminatory border closure, not a precautionary one". Freight is not as big a spreader of the virus as human beings so I have no problem with that. His one mistake was giving a pass to the UK and Ireland (as he mistakenly thought or was told we were doing better) when he should have banned the lot.

My point remains that it is a bit rich for those who lambasted him for shutting US borders to people from infected countries to turn around and criticise the British government for not doing it!

The criticism levelled at Trump is somewhat justified, it is discriminatory to single out a Chinese person against an American - equally a British person against a European - and it is stupid to believe that the virus would discriminate too.

R

[ralphy]

[QUOTE=Alansmithee;5423243]https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...gers_final.pdf

I'll be taking a pass on getting on a flight for some considerable time after they resume.

R

[Alansmithee]

[QUOTE=ralphy;5423528]

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...gers_final.pdf

I'll be taking a pass on getting on a flight for some considerable time after they resume.

R

This section in particular did not fill me with confidence:

In the context of these measures, an increase in cases of unruly or disruptive passengers should be expected,either prior to departure or in-flight. This may be due to passengers not wishing to sit next to each other oraccusing each other of not following the rules. There is a strong potential for conflict if it is not managedproperly. In the worst case, panic could become quite a serious threat to flight safety – for example if thereare significant displacements within the cabin. To address this, operators are invited to consider the raisedlikelihood of these factors within their procedures and training.

[Passenger]

Covid be like the 07/08 Financial crisis and 911 all rolled into one and jacked up on steroids, cheers Xi/ China.

[Saint-Just]

The criticism levelled at Trump is somewhat justified, it is discriminatory to single out a Chinese person against an American - equally a British person against a European - and it is stupid to believe that the virus would discriminate too.

R

On top of the fact that freight was never mentioned because of minimal risks (apart from felids, but it's not a mainstay of US imports) and that few countries are self sufficient for food anyway, this should prove how stupid because ineffectual the move was:



(as of this morning, 22 May 2020)

[Nugget]

The criticism levelled at Trump is somewhat justified, it is discriminatory to single out a Chinese person against an American - equally a British person against a European - and it is stupid to believe that the virus would discriminate too.

R

The ban blocked entry to the USA from anyone who had been in China in the last 14 days - not a particular nationality or a Chinese person. It did not apply to US residents and family members for obvious reasons (e.g. to allow for repatriation) although many were put in quarantine when they arrived home. Extracts from two anti-Trump news outlets below:

New York Times: "Moving to counter the spreading coronavirus outbreak, the Trump administration said on Friday that it would bar entry by most foreign nationals who had recently visited China and put some American travellers under a quarantine as it declared a rare public health emergency."

Al Jazeera: "On 31 January, Trump issues an executive order blocking entry to the US from anyone who has been in China in the last 14 days. It does not apply to US residents and family members or spouses of US residents or citizens"

Australia and New Zealand did exactly the same in March:

"From March 19, New Zealand will close its borders to all non-citizens or non-permanent residents."

"Passengers are not allowed to transit or enter Australia, except for Australians, immediate family members of Australians, permanent residents and their immediate family members, airline crew and diplomats."

Or are you accusing the blessed Jacinda of discrimination and bigotry??

The point I was originally making was not about Trump but about people being consistent.

[Saint-Just]

Australia and New Zealand did exactly the same in March:

"From March 19, New Zealand will close its borders to all non-citizens or non-permanent residents."

"Passengers are not allowed to transit or enter Australia, except for Australians, immediate family members of Australians, permanent residents and their immediate family members, airline crew and diplomats."

Or are you accusing the blessed Jacinda of discrimination and bigotry??

The point I was originally making was not about Trump but about people being consistent.

Actually not Jacinda, but yourself: in your examples, both countries have blocked EVERYONE from entering, bar their own nationals. THIS is being consistent.

As to the quarantining of US citizens returning to the US...

Arriving passengers were cramped into a huge crowd of people waiting to be screened through U.S. customs at O’Hare International Airport. Initially there was no word whether any passengers were discovered to have a fever. Passengers and family were concerned that Social Distancing was invalidated by risk of exposure to to COVID-19 when hundreds of people were forced to wait side-by-side in large terminal areas. Passengers, some who waited for four hours, had their temperatures assessed and were asked where they had recently traveled.

(Source: Cardinal News)

[Passenger]

Why call her the 'blessed Jacinda', she's proven herself capable in a crisis, that's admirable, it's easy to appear capable during the good times, I see no need or reason to belittle her for doing her job well...If only our lot were as fit for purpose.

[Saint-Just]

Why call her the 'blessed Jacinda', she's proven herself capable in a crisis, that's admirable, it's easy to appear capable during the good times, I see no need or reason to belittle her for doing her job well...If only our lot were as fit for purpose.

Don't be surprised: it's the accepted nickname given to her by the Rob(NZ)s of this world, who would much prefer if NZ had a terrible death toll so that they would not look so stupid when criticising her.

[oldoakknives]

Looks like another possible treatment to help those badly affected by the effects of the virus is being tested. Could it be that this kind of treatment will be the answer in the absence of a vaccine? If it could lessen the severity of the attack on the body's systems it might be another answer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52...El38drVkDC7c8U

[ralphy]

The point I was originally making was not about Trump but about people being consistent.

I was replying to your post which was about Trump:

I agree with the view that borders should have been closed earlier. But one of (if not) the first world leaders to close their borders was Donald Trump in early March...

R

[snowman]

She basically stated this virus is acting 'true to form' and already burning out. Whether that's true or not we don't know but I thought it might be useful to share her perspective here.

Interestingly that's pretty much what happened with Spanish Flu in 1918.

Viruses were much less understood back then and hope was running out to control it, when it suddenly just 'burned itself out'.

While 'herd-immunity' in terms of the majority being immune (Has anyone actually proved that a) you are immune after having it and b) unable to transmit it, even if you are?) almost certainly hasn't been reached in the UK - The low amount of contact will be preventing the virus from spreading to new hosts and it will, like the Spanish Flu, eventually die out, unless contact is increased too much before the virus has 'burnt out'.

M

[mondie]

This is fraudulent. Hancock is counting a nasal and a throat swab from the same individual as two tests for his daily testing claims!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...ted-officials/

[oldoakknives]

This is fraudulent. Hancock is counting a nasal and a throat swab from the same individual as two tests for his daily testing claims!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...ted-officials/

I suppose it depends on whether you are looking at figures for tests, or individuals tested.

[mondie]

Not really, its just lies and fraudulent claims no matter which way you look at. Why lie - something to hide?

[oldoakknives]

Not really, its just lies and fraudulent claims no matter which way you look at. Why lie - something to hide?

No. If you say you did x amount of tests, that's different to saying you tested x amount of people.

I know you and others on here desperately want to run down the government, because they successfully pursued policies you disagree with, but at least try to be honest.

[number2]

This is fraudulent. Hancock is counting a nasal and a throat swab from the same individual as two tests for his daily testing claims!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...ted-officials/

I suppose it depends on whether you are looking at figures for tests, or individuals tested.

Not really, its just lies and fraudulent claims no matter which way you look at. Why lie - something to hide?

No. If you say you did x amount of tests, that's different to saying you tested x amount of people.

I know you and others on here desperately want to run down the government, because they successfully pursued policies you disagree with, but at least try to be honest.

And - saved.

[tleefox]

This is fraudulent. Hancock is counting a nasal and a throat swab from the same individual as two tests for his daily testing claims!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...ted-officials/

Hancock seems well out of his depth and highly stressed. In the fullness of time I think he will be the fall guy for the Government’s ham-fisted response to the Covid-19 outbreak.

[magirus]

This is fraudulent. Hancock is counting a nasal and a throat swab from the same individual as two tests for his daily testing claims!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...ted-officials/

Counting different elements of the same test as separate tests is clearly fraudulent and a sign of desperation.

[ralphy]

And - saved.

Let's not forget that simply sending out a kit is recorded as 'test done'.

R

[number2]

Let's not forget that simply sending out a kit is recorded as 'test done'.

R

The claim of +100,000 tests would be acceptable were it not for the underlying err - lying.