Trust in Government never been more important.

[DonPeffers]

UK becomes Europe's first Country to pass 50,000 covid deaths and now less than 50 days to EU exit yet battles behind the scenes at No.10 with adviser Cain out and seems Dom on his bike shortly.

How about a united team to sort out the severe problems we face?

 

Trust in Gov. badly lacking at the moment just when it is most needed regarding possible vaccine rollout.

4 different vaccines mentioned 11 nov 2020 in presentation by Prof Van Tam.

 

Today  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54897737  "Coronavirus: Safety officials had 'political' pressure to

approve PPE".

"Britain's safety watchdog felt leaned on by the government to make factually incorrect statements about PPE suits bought for NHS staff earlier in the Covid-19 pandemic, the BBC has found.

Emails reveal how the Health and Safety Executive said protective suits, bought by the government in April, had not been tested to the correct standard.

But the emails describe "political" pressure to approve them for use."

 

Apparently company which supplied them is called PestFix and garments were eventually approved for use as PPE.

 

Shortly before a vaccine rollout the last thing that helps is a headline mentioning safety officials were lent on IMO.

 

 

[Blatman]

How many members of the public were actually asked about their trust in the Government before this story broke? I'm betting none. So whilst it may be true, it's the press driving the narrative rather than reporting on it. Report the resignation of course. Report the FACTS as best as they can be gleaned. But don't push the narrative. It's up to us if we decide to trust them or not and we don't need influencing by the press. We can make our own minds up based on the facts...

And yes I do appreciate the flaws in that argument BUT the press are not helping us here, as usual.

[Lyonspride]

6 hours ago, Blatman said:

How many members of the public were actually asked about their trust in the Government before this story broke? I'm betting none. So whilst it may be true, it's the press driving the narrative rather than reporting on it. Report the resignation of course. Report the FACTS as best as they can be gleaned. But don't push the narrative. It's up to us if we decide to trust them or not and we don't need influencing by the press. We can make our own minds up based on the facts...

And yes I do appreciate the flaws in that argument BUT the press are not helping us here, as usual.

 

What he ^^ said........

The media are causing half the problems in the moment, not just in the UK, but everywhere.
The whole PPE issue, the wearing of masks, the testing (which has nearly 20% false positives and is feeding the case statistics), all of it has been meddled with and used as a weapon against the govt.
 

[Blatman]

2 hours ago, Lyonspride said:

the testing (which has nearly 20% false positives and is feeding the case statistics),

 

The Lancet, one of the few publications which I would trust, disagrees with your assessment of false positives:

 

Quote

The current rate of operational false-positive swab tests in the UK is unknown; preliminary estimates show it could be somewhere between 0·8% and 4·0%.

 

The full article, published on September 29th this year is here.

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

When Nick Robinson, a respected (by many) journalist at BBC uses expressions such as taking "...barrels of salt..." when referring to a a government statement, you realise that even someone who was once a Young Conservative has been infected with the cynicism virus. 

[DonPeffers]

19 hours ago, Blatman said:

 (1) How many members of the public were actually asked about their trust in the Government before this story broke? I'm betting none. So whilst it may be true, it's the press driving the narrative rather than reporting on it. Report the resignation of course. Report the FACTS as best as they can be gleaned. But don't push the narrative. It's up to us if we decide to trust them or not and we don't need influencing by the press. We can make our own minds up based on the facts...

And yes I do appreciate the flaws in that argument BUT the press are not helping us here, as usual.

 

10 hours ago, Blatman said:

 

 (2 The Lancet, one of the few publications which I would trust, disagrees with your assessment of false positives:

 

 

The full article, published on September 29th this year is here.

 

3 hours ago, Man On The Clapham Omnibus said:

 (3) When Nick Robinson, a respected (by many) journalist at BBC uses expressions such as taking "...barrels of salt..." when referring to a a government statement, you realise that even someone who was once a Young Conservative has been infected with the cynicism virus. 

Re. point 1 the main thrust of the BBC story is not No. 10 infighting but safety rules being compromised and officials 'lent on'. The resignations of Cain and Cummings interest very few outside the Westminster set. Unsure why any media outlet would canvas the public before proceeding with a news item. Any previous precedents Blatters?

 

Re. point 2 and the Lancet article  29 sep 2020  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext

the article highlights a major problem with false negatives ...."Globally, most effort so far has been invested in turnaround times and low test sensitivity (ie, false negatives); one systematic review reported false-negative rates of between 2% and 33% in repeat sample testing.(3rd para).

 

Re. rapid tests in Liverpool.. 12 nov 2020    https://fullfact.org/health/lateral-flow-test/?utm_source=content_page&utm_medium=related_content  "How accurate are the new rapid lateral flow tests?"

 

"The tests being trialled, most notably in Liverpool, are the furthest along this testing process, and details of their accuracy were published recently.

These tests, made by Innova, return very few false positives. 99.68% of people who did not have the virus received a negative test result. In other words, very few people who do not have the virus which causes Covid-19 will be told wrongly that they do have it, after doing a lateral flow test.

However, the tests (lateral flow) do return considerably more false negatives (than PCR lab. test). Just 76.8% of people who did have the virus received a positive result (meaning the rest received false negatives). 

This percentage can vary though depending on how much virus is in the person’s system—the test detected over 95% of individuals with “high viral loads”.

 

"PCR tests are still considered the gold standard for testing for the Covid-19 virus but like lateral flow tests, tend to return more false negatives than false positives. "

     So lateral flow tests (like Liverpool) best at detecting high viral loads.  23.8% given incorrect negative result (lateral flow test) for covid infection and poss. spreading infection; very worrying.

 

I think point 3, Nick Robinson and 'barrels of salt' referred to varying reports from government sources re. No.10 infighting IIRC, but happy to be corrected.

 

Each must come to their own conclusion re. BBC article.

"Britain's safety watchdog felt leaned on by the government to make factually incorrect statements..." is IMO the last thing needed now. 

 

Let's hope the new team at No.10 can 'get a grip' pronto.

 

 

 

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

You're probably correct DonP, it could well have been in respect to 'infighting'. However it does not detract from the rampant expression of personal opinions being displayed by senior BBC journalists. There are many examples both frank and subtle, but honestly life's too short to write them all down at the time, and ones memory isn't what it should be...  

[Blatman]

11 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

The resignations of Cain and Cummings interest very few outside the Westminster set. Unsure why any media outlet would canvas the public before proceeding with a news item. Any previous precedents Blatters?

Missing the point. The press never poll the public and if they did chances are Government trust would rate low anyway. I like the irony. The press get away with it because it is what is expected with no real interest in reporting the actual events or circumstances because chances are no-one but the protagonists will ever know the real truth. It's a low risk, low value headline dressed up as news...

 

The Lancet article deals with both false positives and false negatives and whilst the focus is on false negatives, the false positive numbers are there for all to see. Not sure why there is a question over that. 

 

"Barrels of salt" = hyperbole from a reporter who since moving to ITN a while back completely dropped off the radar and is trying to get back in the game. I wish he'd stayed at the BBC 'cos then we wouldn't be stuck with the truly awful Keunssberg...

[Blatman]

11 hours ago, DonPeffers said:

"Britain's safety watchdog felt leaned on by the government to make factually incorrect statements..." is IMO the last thing needed now. 

 

Then this BMJ editorial isn't going to send you to your happy place...

[GaryD1971]

11 hours ago, Blatman said:

 

Then this BMJ editorial isn't going to send you to your happy place...

 

Interesting reading. 

 

[Blatman]

25 minutes ago, GaryD1971 said:

 

Interesting reading. 

 

 

The cynic in me is thinking there is some sort of angle here, but I haven't figured out what yet  

[DonPeffers]

I'll clarify my question and it has nothing to do with the exit of any political adviser.

 

Would any media outlet canvas the public before proceeding with a news item concerning 

 

**(13 nov 2020 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54897737 "Coronavirus: Safety officials had 'political' pressure to

approve PPE".).

 "Britain's safety watchdog felt leaned on by the government to make factually incorrect statements".

"Emails reveal how the Health and Safety Executive said protective suits, bought by the government in April, had not been tested to the correct standard.

But the emails describe "political" pressure to approve them for use."**

 

Any previous precedents?

[Blatman]

4 minutes ago, DonPeffers said:

Would any media outlet canvas the public before proceeding with a news item concerning  "Britain's safety watchdog felt leaned on by the government to make factually incorrect statements".

 

Any previous precedents?

 

No, and I said so. The press never poll the public. They ALWAYS use phrases like "public opinion..." in these stories because there is ZERO chance of being proved wrong in any meaningful way. My issue with it that it may be a correct assumption, but it is ALWAYS an assumption, as if the press speak for the majority of us (and are correct about it) all the time. It saves then from the bother of actually doing any real investigative work. The phrase should be "opinion of those in my echo chamber..."

[jim_l]

On 14/11/2020 at 12:29, DonPeffers said:

This percentage can vary though depending on how much virus is in the person’s system—the test detected over 95% of individuals with “high viral loads”.

 

 So lateral flow tests (like Liverpool) best at detecting high viral loads.  23.8% given incorrect negative result (lateral flow test) for covid infection and poss. spreading infection; very worrying.

 

I am not unduly worried by these numbers Don, I think we have to be realistic and not be fooled by the terminology. If someone has caught the virus in the last couple of days, or longer but is asymptomatic, they may test negative, but the best current thinking suggests transmission is also limited from those people.    If we were to rephrase it and say we are testing for viral shedding, or contagiousness, then the figures for these tests might be nearer the 95% you mention. Viral load is a huge factor in whether people get sick, and how sick. 

 

I have had few opportunities to give one of my daughters a hug since April ,  she had a negative test on Friday.  Taking the negative test and the absence of symptoms , my interpretation of that was that there was a low risk window, perhaps 24 or 36 hours, that we could have a hug, all other precautions being taken (outdoors or ventilated place, handwashing, masking, distancing, limiting face to face time, etc) 

 

I don't know that she wasn't incubating the virus at the time, or picked it up in the hours after, just a question of using what we know to create a very low risk window.  I suspect that kind of thinking will be applied when it comes to allowing visits to care homes before long.