Don't worry - BawJaws isn't the only one getting a pasting from the media - Scottish Government getting it tight too. Again, following the science which was wrong Coronavirus: Earlier Scottish lockdown 'could have prevented 2,000 deaths' By Mark Daly BBC Disclosure 11 May 2020 please log in to view this image Dougie Chambers and Andy and Mary Leaman all died after contracting Covid-19 More than 2,000 coronavirus deaths could have been prevented if Scotland had locked down two weeks earlier, according to a new study. A team of epidemiological scientists at University of Edinburgh produced the findings, which feature in a BBC Disclosure investigation. They suggest the death rate in Scotland could have been reduced by about 80% with earlier action. Experts also told Disclosure the UK as a whole should have acted earlier. The Scottish government said its actions had been guided by the best and most up-to-date scientific advice. The BBC Disclosure programme, which was broadcast on Monday night, also reveals there were multiple transmissions of the virus in Edinburgh in February, well before the first confirmed cases in Scotland, but this was not disclosed to the public Despite knowing the virus had been in Scotland since at least late February, Scotland did not ban mass gatherings until 16 March, or go into lockdown until 23 March - the same day as the restrictions were announced by the UK government. Scotland's own advisory panel - featuring Professor Devi Sridhar, chair of public health at Edinburgh University - was set up two days after the lockdown was introduced. Prof Sridhar said there had "definitely" been more than enough information about the coming pandemic for action to have been taken much sooner across the UK. She said: "We should have been acting by mid-February. We could see that this was not easily a virus to be contained." Professor Dame Anne Glover, who is president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the former chief scientific advisor to the Scottish government, said: "Mistakes have been made and that has resulted in lives being lost." BBC Disclosure asked a team of epidemiological scientists at the University of Edinburgh to model what might have happened to Scotland's death rates if we had locked down sooner. Professor Rowland Kao and his team developed a model which simulated the epidemiological behaviour of the Scottish population. It was based on figures which were published by the National Records of Scotland last week, which said a total of 2,795 people had died with a confirmed or suspected case of the virus. Prof Kao ran simulations to see what would have happened to the spread of the virus if Scotland had locked down on 9 March. Prof Kao said: "The question we're addressing here is what would have happened if rather than having lockdown on around 23 March, we'd done it about two weeks earlier. "While… there's quite a bit of uncertainty in what the final outcome will be, all those [projections] are now substantially below what actually happened." How many lives could have been saved by an early lockdown? Source: National Records of Scotland/University of Edinburgh The model, while allowing for uncertainty, predicted the death toll would have been around 577 - about 80% lower than the actual total. He added: "What that indicates to you is that these measures could have easily taken effect and reduced those death rates." Following the scientific advice Deputy first minister John Swinney, Speaking on The Nine, responded to the study's findings. He said: "I think what that figure represents is the retrospective application of a model to an earlier date from when lockdown started so I don't think the conclusion is particularly surprising, but what we have to look at is the scientific advice that was available to us at the time." Mr Swinney said the Scottish government acted "promptly and swiftly" on the basis of the scientific advice available and in some respects, such as the ban on large gatherings, was ahead of this advice.
Remarkable outcome from the new modeling and a stark reminder how important it is that a government makes the hard decision swiftly. All governments now have ‘new’ science to make those decisions correctly if (when?) this should ever happen again. 80% of lives saved is staggering.
The usual **** on the Today Programme as the awful Mishal Hussein (I can be tough, I really can, by simply not listening to any answers and reading out in a loud voice my pre prepared questions) ‘interviewed ‘ M. Hancock. Hancock is in denial about everything it seems. No one is confused about what Stay Alert means. Not a single person. There is no problem with being told to go back to work on Monday, when it was actually Wednesday. Look, everyone knows what ‘stay alert’ means. So what if the police are worried about a mob descending on the Lake District, the English are free to drive for decades for a five minute walk. Only cretins don’t understand what ‘stay alert’ means, you cretin. The standard of British journalism upheld by the Times, which within a single story used the following phrases to describe the guidance on masks: We have been ordered to wear masks We have been advised to wear masks We have been told to wear masks We have been recommended to wear masks For **** sake.
I see the right wing press are getting in early and accusing teachers unions of ‘itching for a fight’ and ‘political posturing’, as they are voicing concerns of their members about what’s being put in place before kids MAYBE go back to school.........these ****s (the press) have no shame.
You traitorous scum......how dare you be confused about our glorious leaders message.......to the tower with ya
The TV ‘journalism’ has generally gone to pot. Glorified ‘journalists’ seem intent on building their own brand at the cost of good and honest reporting. Shameful. Just read the government H&S advice for factories and warehouses. The advice on face masks is damning (ie the evidence for benefit is very minor, and the capability of doing it safely is in your own hands - and basically impracticable). Have to say the basic booklet is good. Shows good pictorial evidence. Gives good advice on working. Encourages involvement of workforce in risk assessment process. Put together with employers own legal responsibility and problem solving/solution thinking it will provide a good basis for back-to-working. Interesting how companies will have to handle ‘vulnerable’ workers who should be advised to stay at home. For example excess BMI of 40 are considered vulnerable. I know senior management and workers who I would consider have a BMI of 40+. That will be something companies will have to consider.
The problem is though is that while it might encourage the involvement of the workforce, it seems as with the Teachers, if they do voice any concerns they are labelled by the press as being troublesome or obstructive.
40+ is pretty enormous. That’s morbidly obese I think. Good that the guidance booklet is decent, I think most people are keen to get back to work, but they should be given the opportunity to do it as safely as possible.
It did encourage me to have a quick look and it seemed to suggest someone at 5’9” and 19-20 Stone would be at 40 BMI ‘starting gate’ - it certainly made me think of a few people.
I was informed the plan was to test 100,000 people a day. No point just repeating the test over and over on the same patients on the same day It does appear that one of the real major problems is the home test kit....and some of the drive-in centres, where you are given a (DIY) kit and asked to do the test yourself (obviously then returning to the staff for testing). Sticking a swab to the back of your throat induces the gag response and hence is difficult to do and a lot of unclear responses are coming from here. (The USA are using a saliva test, which is easier to use and so giving better results) Another problem is the results are taking 10 days to come back, contact tracing for people you have been in contact with in the last 10 days if out of lockdown will be horrendous. This is staggering... as the test from receipt into the lab should take less than a day, but this problem is caused by the centralised labs policy We need far more capacity than we have, because the next thing we really need to do is carry out a community sweep. This is to test everyone in a small but defiined community to see the prevalence in the community. How many people are truly assymptomatic. Until we know that we will just keep getting wave after wave....the virus will just happily pass through person to person until it finds some one to make ill. We will contract trace that person....but not the 2-3 people it took to get there. I am off to make a mask out of a coffee filter and a hankerchief and two elastic bands so I can go for a walk in the park with my granddaughter tomorrow
