Skip to main content

UK Health Secretary talks nonsense

The UK government won't tell us who sits on the body advising them on how to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. It isn't surprising because what we do now know is that it lacks critical expertise in virology, immunology.

This lack of expertise certainly shows at the daily media briefings, which seem more to do with putting a government spin on stories than revealing what is happening. To the greatest extent, we are being kept in the dark.



Take today, for example. The Health Secretary Matt Hancock came up with this shockingly misleading statement. He told us that


“The UK has already gone past the number of tests per day for instance that they carry out in South Korea, we’re approaching the levels that Germany undertakes"

This just is not the case by any reading of the statistics.

The UK’s daily testing average over the past week has been just shy of 23,000 tests a day. Germany has been carrying out 450,000 tests a week, according to its foreign minister, equivalent to 64,000 a day. So, that is twice the level reached by the UK.


The comparison with South Korea is completely bonkers.

South Korea, has had a test, trace and treat strategy from the outset, and as a result, they reduced the number of infections and deaths. They now test just 10 a day because that is the number of new cases per day. Let's look at the comparison


South Korea as of today:


Coronavirus Cases:
10,738
Deaths:
243
Recovered:
8,764


The UK as of today


Coronavirus Cases:
157,149
Deaths:
21,092 (Hospital deaths)
Recovered:
N/A


The UK doesn't know how many cases it has, nor how many deaths.  The UK government was late to act and have been ineffective in the action needed. We needed a test, trace and treat strategy.

The UK government can't even sort out testing properly nor PPE for our frontline staff. To compare us with South Korea simply serves to show how divorced from reality they have become.  

There have been so many missed opportunities.  There is only one way to describe the UK government approach: incompetent. 




.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau