The Preacherman

There is no bad news. Vallance and Whitty sexed up the data. They are going to get roasted today by MPs at the Science and Technology Committee

How much detail do you want? I think this detailed enough and is backed up evidence. Surely it was worth a response from the government. Let's look at the first of the 4 points on testing and detection. This is a radical departure as it places the emphasis on quality rather than quality. It acknowledges that the testing and isolation of asymptomatic is a waste of time as although asymptomatic infection is possible it is unlikely. Far better to encourage and support the symptomatic and positive to isolate as they will be contagious. They are also very clear that quality control of testing needs to be introduced and the data associated with the tests needs to be improved. 1) To improve the testing and detection of cases Transmission (school, groups of youngsters) Identify, contact trace and isolate INFECTIOUS symptomatic children. Switch off testing in primary schools (there is good evidence that children to adults transmission is limited) and replace with symptomatic isolation of this age group. Transmission (adult) Identify, contact trace and isolate only INFECTIOUS symptomatic adult cases. Produce outline reports with results of tests and enough contextual information to interpret data (age, medical history, test results with cut off for positivity) to local authorities and local public health teams Isolate the contagious in dedicated facilities if in an extended family with high-risk individuals Testing (cases) National programme to coordinate quality control of all testing to ensure accuracy, precision and consistency of results. Routine checking against gold standard tests for infection/contagiousness of samples. Coordination by Public Health England or successor with powers to act for failing laboratories.

I'm delighted to hear that you find value in my posts. I'll keep finding things of interest to you. What did you think of Heneghan and Jefferson's 4 point evidence based plan for managing covid without lockdowns? There IS another way to beat coronavirus, PM - and here it is: Oxford experts DR TOM JEFFERSON and PROFESSOR CARL HENEGHAN reveal the blueprint they have handed to Boris Johnson https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8900897/amp/Oxford-experts-DR-TOM-JEFFERSON-PROFESSOR-CARL-HENEGHAN-reveal-blueprint-handed-Boris-Johnson.html

Not controversial at all. The winners will be the counties that in 18 months time have the lowest excess deaths.

2000 troops are being sent into Liverpool to test the entire population.

Same idiots who want lockdown.

No but I bet you've got it on repeat.

Was supplied to me by Chinese handlers. You need to be aware that covid-19 is a Chinese plot to destroy USA.

Liverpool clearly past the peak of cases now.

Yeah that graph the dodgy sexed up one to justify lockdown. Already ready clear the 4,000 deaths per day one is never going to happen.

They can't find it because there never was chart for deaths. Instead Whitty and Vallance stated 200 deaths per by mid October based on 50,000 cases per day. I can remember the debate about them using a 0.4% CFR to make this calculation.

Oh dear cases seem to have plateaued just as we are about to go into an English lockdown.

The link you provided doesn't provide substantive evidence just platitudes.

Charts used to justify nationla lockdown used data that over estimate deaths by at least a factor of 4.

I'm quite happy not to wear a mask as there is no evidence to support mask wearing in the community to reduce transmission of covid-19.

Thanks Robert, that's a relief, I was really worried the housing market would grind to a complete halt.

⬆️⬆️⬆️See post above⬆️⬆️⬆️

Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan presentes an evidence based plan to manage covid-19 without lockdowns over a month ago. This plan is well tought through and quite detailed. Essentially it consists of 4 points. 1) improve the testing and detection of cases; stop asymptomatic testing and focus on those with symptoms who will be the spreaders. 2) Identify the vulnerable and reduce their risk whilst enhancing supportive measures; increased resources and staff for social care. 3) Identify and mitigate the collateral damage of COVID; including damage to education, non-covid healthcare, inequality, mental health 4) Develop a better interpretation of the COVID data. Poor quality and inconsistent data is hampering the management of covid https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8900897/amp/Oxford-experts-DR-TOM-JEFFERSON-PROFESSOR-CARL-HENEGHAN-reveal-blueprint-handed-Boris-Johnson.html

Surely it is everyone's interests if the data that is used to make decisions is shared openly and with the assumptions made clear. Yet again we've been told that stronger measure must be taken or 100,000s will die. However, the projections which have not been shared openly are already fraying at the edges.

There is an excellent article from New Scientist about the non-platforming and sanctioning of scientists whose findings aren't 'correct'. https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/coronavirus/2020/10/why-scientists-fear-toxic-covid-19-debate Why scientists fear the “toxic” Covid-19 debate The hyper-polarisation of discussions about how to handle the coronavirus pandemic risks stifling nuance and undermining scientific inquiry.

Where there's a will there's a way. The effort focus on building the Nightingale hospitals would have been better focused on building a community response.

Proof the NHS is under resourced. This is why GPs have called on Matt Hancock to properly resource non-covid health care. And his response (or lack of it) reveals the huge contempt that he holds doctors in.

This is what Germany have done very successfully. However, UK community services have been decimated by years of austerity.