Taxpayer money was used to pay social media influencers and reality TV stars to promote the NHS Test and Trace system, the government has admitted.
The Mirror cited a social media expert as saying the influencers would usually be paid between £5,000 and £10,000 for an ad post.
Dr Andrew Kemp, Head of Scientific Advisory Board on the British Institute of Cleaning Science, said alcohol based hand gels have still not been proven to kill Covid-19 on skin. But the Lincoln university academic said overuse of the gels will allow other bugs – commonly found on our hands – to learn how to survive them. If antibiotic resistant superbugs adapt to survive alcohol it could lead to an “armageddon situation”, he warned.
He stressed that hand hygiene was vital to deal with the spread of Covid, and hand washing was a powerful weapon. But he warned that even the most potent sanitisers do not destroy every single bug, potentially giving rise to more problems.
The surviving bacteria would be resistant to alcohol and potentially far more harmful.
I used to joke about ending up under house arrest – arraigned by Europol on charges of xenophobia for criticising the Maastricht Treaty or some such. Sure enough, here I am after an ill-timed trip to France. And house arrest is the apt term: we returnees not allowed out even for solitary walks. The rules are unenforceable, of course, and plenty of people are ignoring them, but newspaper columnists and politicians don’t have that option. If there is a double standard at work, it is the opposite of what is commonly supposed.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/30/wanted-toughest-possible-lockdown-now-will-pay-price/
The study looks at the cases of 122 people who have died in the region outside of a hospital setting – either at home or in accommodation for the elderly – and whose deaths were attributed to Covid-19. Half of this group were aged 88 or over. Of the 122 cases, 111 were judged to have extensive comorbidities (the presence of one or more additional conditions) and 11 had moderate comorbidities. Not one of those who died, in other words, were in good health. In only 15 per cent of cases was Covid-19 judged to be the direct cause of death. Covid-19 was a contributory cause in 70 per cent of cases, and in the remaining 15 per cent death was judged to have been caused by another underlying cause – most often heart disease. The study can be read here, in Swedish.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-percent-of-covid-deaths-were-directly-from-covid-/
The evidence on face coverings ‘is not very strong in either direction’, England’s deputy chief medical officer has said, leaving Britons confused once again over experts’ changing attitudes to masks.
The choice we face is stark. One option is to maintain a general lockdown for an unknown amount of time until herd immunity is reached through a future vaccine or until there is a safe and effective treatment. This must be weighed against the detrimental effects that lockdowns have on other health outcomes. The second option is to minimise the number of deaths until herd immunity is achieved through natural infection. Most places are neither preparing for the former nor considering the latter.
The question is not whether to aim for herd immunity as a strategy, because we will all eventually get there. The question is how to minimise casualties until we get there. Since Covid-19 mortality varies greatly by age, this can only be accomplished through age-specific countermeasures. We need to shield older people and other high-risk groups until they are protected by herd immunity.
Among the individuals exposed to Covid-19, people aged in their 70s have roughly twice the mortality of those in their 60s, 10 times the mortality of those in their 50s, 40 times that of those in their 40s, 100 times that of those in their 30s, and 300 times that of those in their 20s. The over-70s have a mortality that is more than 3,000 times higher than children have. For young people, the risk of death is so low that any reduced levels of mortality during the lockdown might not be due to fewer Covid-19 deaths, but due to fewer traffic accidents.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/29/delaying-herd-immunity-is-costing-lives/
No child who was not already profoundly ill has died of Covid-19 in Britain, a large study has indicated, with the researchers saying that the results should reassure parents as a new school term begins.
The study looked at 260 hospitals in England, Wales and Scotland. Out of the 69,500 patients admitted with proven Covid-19 in the first six months of the year, 651 — or 0.9 per cent — were under 19 years of age.
Six deaths of minors were recorded. Three were newborn babies with other severe health problems. The other three were aged 15 to 18 years old and also had “profound health issues”.
In the interest of public debate, we allow visitors to share opinions, experiences and research that may be of value to others. This is a visitor contribution from our Discussions page.
The views expressed are those of the individual posters themselves. Please read our Comments and contributions disclaimer.
Author
Steve Sieff
- Website: https://greenbandredband.com
Greenbandredband – an explanation
BACKGROUND
In all the controversy over what the science tells us about Coronavirus, two things have remained relatively clear throughout.
1. The virus is dangerous to a very small minority of the population who can be relatively easily identified by reference to age and certain underlying conditions. The majority of the population display at worst mild symptoms and frequently no symptoms at all.
2. The virus is capable of spreading very fast, quite possibly transmitted by asymptomatic carriers in addition to symptomatic people.
Taking both of these together, it follows that if the identifiably vulnerable people can be shielded from infection, then the speed of the virus spread would enable the rest of the population to become infected and potentially immune relatively quickly. Even if immunity turns out to be temporary opening up the possibility of repeated infection, the low severity of the infection for most people means that repeated infections would be perfectly tolerable. The healthy could then carry on working in order to protect the vulnerable while scientists and medics worked to find a way of combatting the worst effects of the virus. In other words, the two key characteristics of the virus could be exploited to minimise the disruption and harm it causes.
SUPPRESSION
Unfortunately, from an early stage, world governments seemingly assumed that we were unable to protect the vulnerable, and hence focused almost exclusively on the much more difficult strategy of preventing the virus from spreading. Instead of using the virus’ key characteristics against it, we chose to try and combat one of its strongest features.
This approach became known as ‘suppression’. It led us to social distancing, lockdown and face coverings. In short it required us to halt or severely restrict person to person interaction because these interactions are what the virus thrives on. Unfortunately they are also what people thrive on, so a suppression approach comes with a heavy cost to both physical and mental health. Had this been short term pain for long term gain then perhaps it would have been a tolerable sacrifice. But in fact a suppression approach potentially continues until the virus has completely vanished or been contained, so it seems to only offer long term pain and fear of infection for everyone, with a widely distributed vaccine as the only escape.
That is where we now find ourselves. Risk is assessed on the basis only of case numbers, which are taken from testing. The focus on impact – espoused by hospitalisations and deaths – has given way to a focus purely on prevalence, without any further consideration of whether that prevalence is leading to harm.
LACK OF ALTERNATIVES
It has been heartening to see a gradual increase in the numbers of people prepared to question the suppression approach. But there are still very few proposals for how to change things. Herd immunity is often put forward as the answer, but it is clear that uncontrolled spread is very unlikely to be accepted by authorities or by a large proportion of the population because of the potential harm to those who are vulnerable. Without a realistic proposal to replace suppression – one that addresses the concerns of those who currently support that approach – protesting and campaigns to change our course will not succeed. To convince those responsible for making decisions, and those who support them, a realistic and balanced alternative is needed. That alternative may not be exactly what anyone wants, but the status quo is unsatisfactory for one reason or another for many people, so if an alternative proposal can tick enough boxes for people on both ends of the spectrum then it can quickly gain consensus.
RETURN TO OLD NORMAL
For many people, probably including the majority who will read this, the ideal solution would be to treat Coronavirus much as we treat seasonal flu. Based on infection fatality rates and excess death forecasts, there are many who would see this as a perfectly proportional way to proceed. But by now it is surely obvious to all of us that the months of fear and panic will not be easily reversed. There are too many people who are afraid of this virus and have been conditioned to treat it as a unique risk with its own set of rules. Its impact on our daily lives has become so pervasive and all encompassing that it is simply unrealistic to expect a sudden return to what we want to consider ‘normal’. We will not be able to flick the switch and return to February 2020 when distancing/masks/restrictions on gatherings/forced closure of businesses would have been viewed as totalitarian and impossible to imagine in our country.
Does that mean we must accept a ‘new normal’ where all of us must curb our interactions in an ongoing fight against the spread of the virus? The answer is no. We can’t return to the way things used to be with a click of our fingers, but we can start the process of getting back there now, and the changes we can make immediately will radically improve on the status quo.
CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS
The first step towards normality is accepting that there are now many people who are petrified of being infected with Coronavirus. That might be for legitimate reasons or it might be because they have been befuddled by the media/government. Either way, we all have to be realistic and recognise that we are too far down the line to expect an immediate return to rationality. We have to ease back towards proportionality and sense. So going forward – at least for the short term – we need a system which allows freedom of choice without making people feel like those choosing freedom are being irresponsible or heartless. To succeed, that system has to be simple, cheap and capable of immediate implementation with immediate results.
GREENBANDREDBAND
Put simply, Greenbandredband is a proposal to get us out of the mess we are in now. It returns to the fundamental features of the virus and recognises that for great swathes of society, the risks associated with infection are extremely low. At the same time, we would not want to expose those who are vulnerable, nor would we want to force them to remain locked away in isolation while they wait for a vaccine.
The full details of how the system works can be found at https://greenbandredband.com. In essence it is targeted distancing. So the less vulnerable are free to mix unrestricted, but they will maintain ‘social distance’ from those who feel that is required. Each individual is free to assess their own position and to choose accordingly. No-one is forced to take any position. If an individual is high risk but wants to take that risk then that is their choice. Similarly, if someone who is low risk feels more vulnerable than they actually are, then they can keep the protection of social distancing for themselves.
COMMUNICATION
In order for people to be able to know when they are required to maintain a respectful distance and when they can interact normally some method of quick and clear communication is required. So the site recommends that people indicate which group they are choosing by displaying something which quickly gives a visual signal to everyone else. The logos on the site are free to use and can be adapted to be printed on clothing/stickers/bands so that each person’s preference is obvious to others. Of course where someone is able to communicate orally a visual marker may not be required. Provided communication is done clearly, it doesn’t matter how it takes place.
SOLUTIONS NOT ARGUMENTS
The FAQ answer many of the important questions people have asked, and I am happy to address any others. Although there is a brief discussion of some of the key scientific questions, that is not the focus of the site. The system does not depend on herd immunity or islands of isolated elderly and it is not an attempt to prove anyone right or wrong. There are many other sources of information which people can use to assess their individual risk/approach. Greenbandredband is a practical way for everyone to get closer to what they want, regardless of how they interpret ‘the science’.
OVERCOMING OBJECTIONS
I anticipate that readers of this will largely fall into the greenband group and that they will have two principal objections to the greenbandredband approach. Firstly that it normalises/accepts social distancing and secondly that it could lead to a deeply divided society. Both of these are legitimate concerns and to some extent I share them. Greenbandredband would not be my ideal society. I have no desire to see people walking around needing to display any type of affiliation to any group. And I would much rather see a proportional and measured attitude to risk rather than disproportionate and confused restrictions. Overall it is a step backwards for the society that I knew in February. But times have changed. As a step towards freedom and proportionality it would be a huge improvement on where we are now, so I reluctantly wear my green band or display the green logo every day, and I wait for a time when it won’t be required.
I can be contacted through the website https://greenbandredband.com/contact
Did you hear it? Beyond the second wave sirens and the schools debate, the sound of the penny dropping on the global stage. In recent days, world leaders have hinted at an extraordinary admission: lockdowns are a disaster, and we can’t afford to repeat the mistake
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/27/europe-last-waking-lockdown-folly/
The British public protected the NHS alright. Any fears that the institution might be overwhelmed were put aside when, a couple of weeks into lockdown, the hurriedly-constructed Nightingale hospitals were still empty, along with many other hospital wards, clinics and surgeries. By mid April, routine clinical activity by GPs was down 25 per cent and A&E visits down 52 per cent. Some of that was thanks to fewer drunks falling over and fewer children coming to grief in playgrounds, yet there is plenty to suggest that some very unwell people were scared into taking the instruction not to trouble the.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/27/did-protecting-nhs-actually-cost-lives/
The NHS has a “hidden waiting list” of 15.3 million patients who need follow-up appointments for health problems, according to the first analysis of its kind.
The official waiting list, which stands at 3.9 million, shows how many patients are yet to have their first hospital appointment after a GP referral.
However, the total number who are on hospital books in England and need appointments is not collated centrally. A new calculation, based on freedom of information requests to NHS trusts and seen by The Times, puts the figure at 15.3 million.
Although the official waiting list, after initial referral by a GP, has remained at a fairly stable level throughout the pandemic, this has been mainly driven by fewer patients joining it.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-nhs-data-shows-15m-on-hidden-waiting-list-w250vxvz6
Controlling movement in these tiny machines requires the researchers to shine a laser on minuscule light-sensitive circuits on their backs, which propels their four legs forward. They’ve been designed to operate in all manner of environments such as extreme acidity and temperatures. One of their chief purposes, the researchers say, could be to investigate the human body from the inside.
Fifty years of Moore’s law scaling in microelectronics have brought remarkable opportunities for the rapidly evolving field of microscopic robotics. Electronic, magnetic and optical systems now offer an unprecedented combination of complexity, small size and low cost, and could be readily appropriated for robots that are smaller than the resolution limit of human vision (less than a hundred micrometres). However, a major roadblock exists: there is no micrometre-scale actuator system that seamlessly integrates with semiconductor processing and responds to standard electronic control signals. Here we overcome this barrier by developing a new class of voltage-controllable electrochemical actuators that operate at low voltages (200 microvolts), low power (10 nanowatts) and are completely compatible with silicon processing. To demonstrate their potential, we develop lithographic fabrication-and-release protocols to prototype sub-hundred-micrometre walking robots. Every step in this process is performed in parallel, allowing us to produce over one million robots per four-inch wafer. These results are an important advance towards mass-manufactured, silicon-based, functional robots that are too small to be resolved by the naked eye.
In response to the novel and deadly coronavirus, many governments deployed draconian tactics never used in modern times: severe and broad restrictions on daily activity that helped send the world into its deepest peacetime slump since the Great Depression.
The equivalent of 400 million jobs have been lost world-wide, 13 million in the U.S. alone. Global output is on track to fall 5% this year, far worse than during the financial crisis, according to the International Monetary Fund.
Five months later, the evidence suggests lockdowns were an overly blunt and economically costly tool. They are politically difficult to keep in place for long enough to stamp out the virus. The evidence also points to alternative strategies that could slow the spread of the epidemic at much less cost. As cases flare up throughout the U.S., some experts are urging policy makers to pursue these more targeted restrictions and interventions rather than another crippling round of lockdowns.
According to professor Russell Viner, President of Royal College of Paediatrics and SAGE member:
- There’s very little evidence for the use of masks in schools.
- Children could potentially spread the virus more if they wear masks
LOCKDOWN will come to be seen as a “monumental mistake on a global scale” and must never happen again, a scientist who advises the Government on infectious diseases says.
Mark Woolhouse said lockdown was a “panic measure” but admitted it was the only option at the time because “we couldn’t think of anything better to do”.
But it is a crude measure that takes no accounts of the risk levels to different individuals, the University of Edinburgh professor said, meaning that back in March the nation was “concentrating on schools when we should have been concentrating on care homes”.
Nine out a 10 people in England live in areas that have not seen a Covid-19 case in a month and new lockdowns are not needed, an expert has said.
Professor John Clancy, from Birmingham University, has warned that fears of another shutdown are based on ‘dodgy data.’
Writing in a blog, he said: ”91 per cent of England (that’s 51million people) live in neighbourhoods where there hasn’t been a recorded Covid-19 case in the last 4 weeks.’
He added: ‘So-called ‘spikes’ are occurring here, there, and everywhere up and down the country because new testing regimes are causing them either with false positives, picking up residual infections or (usually more likely) suddenly increased testing in specific areas.’
Care homes were asked to introduce blanket “do not resuscitate” orders for all residents at the height of the coronavirus pandemic, it has been claimed.
The Queen’s Nursing Institute (QNI), a charity promoting community nursing, found that one in ten care homes were ordered to introduce the measure without discussion with staff, family members or the residents. It was intended to help keep hospital beds free.
Half of staff members who said that they had been asked to change DNRs worked in homes for people with learning or cognitive disabilities. The other half worked in homes for the elderly.
Alison Leary, professor of healthcare and workforce modelling at London South Bank University and the author of the report, described the findings as worrying…
According to Dr. Jenny Harries, England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer, the evidence shows:
- The vast majority of children, even those deemed to be in the vulnerable category, do not have severe outcomes from COVID-19.
- The risk child dying in a road traffic accident or from flu “is probably higher than their risk from COVID-19”.
CORONAVIRUS is not as deadly as was thought and the public fear that is stopping the country returning to normal is unfounded, a leading expert says. Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, called for the government to intervene and “proactively reassure the population”.
He said exaggerated fears of Covid have led to “people going about their daily lives misunderstanding and overestimating their risk”.
And he said introducing local lockdowns could do more harm than good by forcing people into their homes, potentially infecting other vulnerable people that live with them.
Professor Heneghan – whose work led to a lowering of the official death toll after he revealed Covid deaths were being counted even if someone had subsequently died of other causes – spoke as he released new data revealing the infection fatality rate had fallen from 2-3 per cent in the height of the pandemic to 0.3.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1326293/coronavirus-death-rate-UK-fatality-rate