NPR

It always seems to be too soon. It was too soon for the UK to lock down in early March, when other European countries had already done so. It was too soon for Boris Johnson to reimpose national restrictions in September, when scientific advisers privately called for them.

Now the UK prime minister’s allies tell us it is too soon to judge his government’s performance. They may be right. We don’t know how the pandemic will end — and other countries, including France, Italy, Spain and Scotland, which manages its own health service, have suffered similar peaks and troughs to England. If the UK government has erred, others have too, in different ways.

Yet it is not too early to judge the performance of Mr Johnson himself because we have already seen the pattern. His missteps over coronavirus have closely followed those he made over Brexit. In both cases, he insisted on seeing what he wanted to see. He saw a world where the British economy would blossom by shunning its largest trading partner, and where a virus would disappear while he shook hands with its victims. That world did not exist.

Mr Johnson went beyond patriotism to embrace British exceptionalism. As coronavirus spread in early February, he mocked the idea that it would affect the global economy, insisting that the UK was “ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles”, and act “as the supercharged champion” of free trade.

If you are not Superman, taking off your spectacles just leaves you blindly optimistic. With Brexit, Mr Johnson insisted “Global Britain” would defy the laws of trade gravity; with coronavirus, it would build a “world-beating” test-and-trace system. Mr Johnson is not one for details. There was no sense of how these goals could be achieved — and they have not been. His global rhetoric only exposed his parochialism.

Futile promises are a hallmark of Mr Johnson’s leadership. During the campaign for Brexit he said the Irish border would be “absolutely unchanged”. Running for the Conservative party leadership he said the UK would leave the EU on October 31 of last year, “do or die”. With Covid-19, his pledges were less cynical, but still beyond his control. He suggested that the UK would turn the tide by June and, in July, said there would be a “significant return to normality” by Christmas. Some people are born to mislead.

Mr Johnson has been most at ease attacking the proposals of others, then stealing them. When his predecessor Theresa May came up with a Brexit deal that avoided a hard border on the island of Ireland, he likened it to a “suicide vest”. When Labour leader Keir Starmer proposed a two-week “circuit breaker” lockdown last month, Mr Johnson dismissed it as offering endless “misery”. In both cases, he ended up adopting the bulk of the proposals that he had lambasted.

His favoured tactic has been to wait until the last moment before U-turning. Whatever the political merits of this strategy, its real-world effects are likely to be disastrous. As Brexit talks drag on, businesses do not know what trading arrangements with the EU will be in two months. Thousands more Britons are now forecast to die of Covid-19 than would have been the case had lockdown been implemented in September.

Mr Johnson has his strengths. This time a year ago, he began an election campaign that made even some Remainers believe Brexit could be swiftly solved. After leaving intensive care in April, he gave an inspiring tribute to the medical team who had treated him for Covid-19. He is an ideal salesman of ideas, which is why his interest in climate change is so welcome.

The problem is that he does not stick to an idea. His signature on any topic is incoherence. He is pro-individual liberty and pro-public health. He likes low taxes and a big state. He wants to boost business, while refusing to listen to it. He does not want a culture war, but he doesn’t stop his government from fighting one. He wants to be the hero and expects everyone else to do the work.

Democratic accountability is an art, not a science — and not a very sophisticated one. Some leaders are punished for events on their watch for which they bear no blame. Some escape the blame for their misdeeds.

Mr Johnson may get lucky with Brexit: while voters now think voting to leave the EU was a bad idea, their minds are elsewhere. But he can have no complaint about being held responsible for the UK’s pandemic failings. He has made the same mistakes at least twice and now looks unlikely to remain in office beyond 2024. Whatever challenge faces him before then, he will probably make the same mistakes again.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:11 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:48 amIt does strike me as somewhat reassuring that despite Boris' increasingly calamitous performance our outcomes seem to be broadly comparable to France and Germany.

Deaths per million population:

Germany 128
France 550
UK 700

Eh...

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:40 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:11 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:48 amIt does strike me as somewhat reassuring that despite Boris' increasingly calamitous performance our outcomes seem to be broadly comparable to France and Germany.

Deaths per million population:

Germany 128
France 550
UK 700

Eh...

Germany has about a 1/3 of the number of cases the UK does and is taking early action, as they should have done in England. It is implementing the lock down to get the numbers down so its test and track system can get things back under control. Every country in europe is experiencing a peak as we move into winter months - highly predictable and should have been planned for. However Germany has a plan to drive down the virus and get it back under control, the UK on the other hand is going into lock down because we have lost control and our NHS is on the brink of collapsing, as the Blonde Bumblecunt acknowledged. Our performance and planning is miles away from Germany's!

Records show that Government minister Lord James Bethnell – along with former chairman of the Conservative Party Lord Andrew Feldman – held a meeting with a firm owned by a Conservative donor, a month before the Government started awarding contracts to the company worth hundreds of millions of pounds, for the supply of personal protective equipment (PPE).

It is also revealed that Conservative MP Owen Paterson sat in on a ministerial meeting with Randox – a firm that employs Paterson as a consultant to the tune of £100,000 a-year. Randox won a Government contract for the supply of Coronavirus tests worth £133 million just a few days earlier. The supply of these tests was later halted due to safety concerns.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:38 am https://www.ft.com/content/3c776449-b2a ... 265a01083e

It always seems to be too soon. It was too soon for the UK to lock down in early March, when other European countries had already done so. It was too soon for Boris Johnson to reimpose national restrictions in September, when scientific advisers privately called for them.

Now the UK prime minister’s allies tell us it is too soon to judge his government’s performance. They may be right. We don’t know how the pandemic will end — and other countries, including France, Italy, Spain and Scotland, which manages its own health service, have suffered similar peaks and troughs to England. If the UK government has erred, others have too, in different ways.

Yet it is not too early to judge the performance of Mr Johnson himself because we have already seen the pattern. His missteps over coronavirus have closely followed those he made over Brexit. In both cases, he insisted on seeing what he wanted to see. He saw a world where the British economy would blossom by shunning its largest trading partner, and where a virus would disappear while he shook hands with its victims. That world did not exist.

Mr Johnson went beyond patriotism to embrace British exceptionalism. As coronavirus spread in early February, he mocked the idea that it would affect the global economy, insisting that the UK was “ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles”, and act “as the supercharged champion” of free trade.

If you are not Superman, taking off your spectacles just leaves you blindly optimistic. With Brexit, Mr Johnson insisted “Global Britain” would defy the laws of trade gravity; with coronavirus, it would build a “world-beating” test-and-trace system. Mr Johnson is not one for details. There was no sense of how these goals could be achieved — and they have not been. His global rhetoric only exposed his parochialism.

Futile promises are a hallmark of Mr Johnson’s leadership. During the campaign for Brexit he said the Irish border would be “absolutely unchanged”. Running for the Conservative party leadership he said the UK would leave the EU on October 31 of last year, “do or die”. With Covid-19, his pledges were less cynical, but still beyond his control. He suggested that the UK would turn the tide by June and, in July, said there would be a “significant return to normality” by Christmas. Some people are born to mislead.

Mr Johnson has been most at ease attacking the proposals of others, then stealing them. When his predecessor Theresa May came up with a Brexit deal that avoided a hard border on the island of Ireland, he likened it to a “suicide vest”. When Labour leader Keir Starmer proposed a two-week “circuit breaker” lockdown last month, Mr Johnson dismissed it as offering endless “misery”. In both cases, he ended up adopting the bulk of the proposals that he had lambasted.

His favoured tactic has been to wait until the last moment before U-turning. Whatever the political merits of this strategy, its real-world effects are likely to be disastrous. As Brexit talks drag on, businesses do not know what trading arrangements with the EU will be in two months. Thousands more Britons are now forecast to die of Covid-19 than would have been the case had lockdown been implemented in September.

Mr Johnson has his strengths. This time a year ago, he began an election campaign that made even some Remainers believe Brexit could be swiftly solved. After leaving intensive care in April, he gave an inspiring tribute to the medical team who had treated him for Covid-19. He is an ideal salesman of ideas, which is why his interest in climate change is so welcome.

The problem is that he does not stick to an idea. His signature on any topic is incoherence. He is pro-individual liberty and pro-public health. He likes low taxes and a big state. He wants to boost business, while refusing to listen to it. He does not want a culture war, but he doesn’t stop his government from fighting one. He wants to be the hero and expects everyone else to do the work.

Democratic accountability is an art, not a science — and not a very sophisticated one. Some leaders are punished for events on their watch for which they bear no blame. Some escape the blame for their misdeeds.

Mr Johnson may get lucky with Brexit: while voters now think voting to leave the EU was a bad idea, their minds are elsewhere. But he can have no complaint about being held responsible for the UK’s pandemic failings. He has made the same mistakes at least twice and now looks unlikely to remain in office beyond 2024. Whatever challenge faces him before then, he will probably make the same mistakes again.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:57 am

Records show that Government minister Lord James Bethnell – along with former chairman of the Conservative Party Lord Andrew Feldman – held a meeting with a firm owned by a Conservative donor, a month before the Government started awarding contracts to the company worth hundreds of millions of pounds, for the supply of personal protective equipment (PPE).

It is also revealed that Conservative MP Owen Paterson sat in on a ministerial meeting with Randox – a firm that employs Paterson as a consultant to the tune of £100,000 a-year. Randox won a Government contract for the supply of Coronavirus tests worth £133 million just a few days earlier. The supply of these tests was later halted due to safety concerns.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:15 am Britain hadn't had a genuine longer term national emergency since what? The three day week? The war? Our systems failed as well as politics. For other types of crisis that we are more used to (i.e. terrorism) we have very strong systems and responses.

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:22 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:15 am Britain hadn't had a genuine longer term national emergency since what? The three day week? The war? Our systems failed as well as politics. For other types of crisis that we are more used to (i.e. terrorism) we have very strong systems and responses.

Yep.

There are those of us who have been banging on about systemic change for a while now.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:26 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:22 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:15 am Britain hadn't had a genuine longer term national emergency since what? The three day week? The war? Our systems failed as well as politics. For other types of crisis that we are more used to (i.e. terrorism) we have very strong systems and responses.

Yep.

There are those of us who have been banging on about systemic change for a while now.

Yeah, and this is my concern about the inevitability of Boris being pinned as the entire problem for this (which he inevitably will be by his Tory successor and the Labour party). There's some serious lessons to learn which could make a huge difference to the country, if we want to learn them.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:45 pm

Carter's Choice wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:39 pm Is thread Bimboman arguing with every singe other poster?

It’s relentless

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:26 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:22 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:15 am Britain hadn't had a genuine longer term national emergency since what? The three day week? The war? Our systems failed as well as politics. For other types of crisis that we are more used to (i.e. terrorism) we have very strong systems and responses.

Yep.

There are those of us who have been banging on about systemic change for a while now.

Yeah, and this is my concern about the inevitability of Boris being pinned as the entire problem for this (which he inevitably will be by his Tory successor and the Labour party). There's some serious lessons to learn which could make a huge difference to the country, if we want to learn them.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:11 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:48 amIt does strike me as somewhat reassuring that despite Boris' increasingly calamitous performance our outcomes seem to be broadly comparable to France and Germany.

Deaths per million population:

Germany 128
France 550
UK 700

Eh...

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 1:21 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:11 am

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:48 amIt does strike me as somewhat reassuring that despite Boris' increasingly calamitous performance our outcomes seem to be broadly comparable to France and Germany.

Deaths per million population:

Germany 128
France 550
UK 700

Eh...

Insurance based health systems work.

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 1:16 pm One io the first T-Cell longevity studies has been published, albeit not peer reviewed. It appears to show that T-Cell immunity appears to be strong 6 months post infection, although far stronger in ex-symptomatic patients than in asymptomatic. So possible good news for the the long term effectiveness of a potential vaccine

In a 2017 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranking developed-country healthcare systems, the United Kingdom was ranked the best healthcare system in the world overall and was ranked the best in the following categories: Care Process (i.e. effective, safe, coordinated, patient-oriented) and Equity.[3] The UK system was ranked the best in the world overall in the previous three reports by the Commonwealth Fund in 2007, 2010 and 2014.[4][5][6] The UK's palliative care has also been ranked as the best in the world by the Economist Intelligence Unit.[7] On the other hand, in 2005-09 cancer survival rates lagged ten years behind the rest of Europe,[8] although survival rates continue to increase.[9][10]

Results The UK spent the least per capita on healthcare in 2017 compared with all other countries studied (UK $3825 (£2972; €3392); mean $5700), and spending was growing at slightly lower levels (0.02% of gross domestic product in the previous four years, compared with a mean of 0.07%). The UK had the lowest rates of unmet need and among the lowest numbers of doctors and nurses per capita, despite having average levels of utilisation (number of hospital admissions). The UK had slightly below average life expectancy (81.3 years compared with a mean of 81.7) and cancer survival, including breast, cervical, colon, and rectal cancer. Although several health service outcomes were poor, such as postoperative sepsis after abdominal surgery (UK 2454 per 100 000 discharges; mean 2058 per 100 000 discharges), 30 day mortality for acute myocardial infarction (UK 7.1%; mean 5.5%), and ischaemic stroke (UK 9.6%; mean 6.6%), the UK achieved lower than average rates of postoperative deep venous thrombosis after joint surgery and fewer healthcare associated infections.

Conclusions The NHS showed pockets of good performance, including in health service outcomes, but spending, patient safety, and population health were all below average to average at best. Taken together, these results suggest that if the NHS wants to achieve comparable health outcomes at a time of growing demographic pressure, it may need to spend more to increase the supply of labour and long term care and reduce the declining trend in social spending to match levels of comparator countries.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 1:59 pm Commonwealth fund report on a whole 11 counties. Only thing it ranked the NHS bottom of the 11 in “health outcomes”

So it’s brilliant but isn’t as good at keeping you alive.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:16 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 1:59 pm Commonwealth fund report on a whole 11 counties. Only thing it ranked the NHS bottom of the 11 in “health outcomes”

So it’s brilliant but isn’t as good at keeping you alive.

10th, but in any event, I'm not sure why you think that is a reason for you to be smug.

The BMJ report points out that there are real problems with cancer care, and there are other areas such as stroke outlined in the report, but the NHS faces a per capita spending deficit of almost 33% to comparator countries.

The countries the Commonwealth Fund analyse health care in are Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Netherland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, UK and USA.
The NHS does very well to come out on top overall in that list, don't the other countries have insurance-based health care systems?

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:24 pm
Either way the money on the latest lockdown should have gone into the NHS.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:29 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:24 pm
Either way the money on the latest lockdown should have gone into the NHS.

Why not just fund to the mean level of comparator countries in the first place?

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:30 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:29 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:24 pm
Either way the money on the latest lockdown should have gone into the NHS.

Why not just fund to the mean level of comparator countries in the first place?

We already do. Raise the money differently and you could make a real difference.

Results The UK spent the least per capita on healthcare in 2017 compared with all other countries studied (UK $3825 (£2972; €3392); mean $5700), and spending was growing at slightly lower levels (0.02% of gross domestic product in the previous four years, compared with a mean of 0.07%).

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 1:46 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 1:16 pm One io the first T-Cell longevity studies has been published, albeit not peer reviewed. It appears to show that T-Cell immunity appears to be strong 6 months post infection, although far stronger in ex-symptomatic patients than in asymptomatic. So possible good news for the the long term effectiveness of a potential vaccine

Aren’t the current vaccine leaders aimed at antibody response.

Interim data showed strong antibody and T-cell responses

Interim results from the ongoing Phase I/II COV001 trial, led by Oxford University, showed AZD1222 was tolerated and generated robust immune responses against the SARS-CoV-2 virus in all evaluated participants.

COV001 is a blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled Phase I/II trial with 1,077 healthy adult participants, aged 18-55 years. It assessed a single dose of AZD1222 against a comparator meningococcal conjugate vaccine, MenACWY. Ten participants also received two doses of AZD1222 one month apart.

The results published in The Lancet confirmed a single dose of AZD1222 resulted in a four-fold increase in antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein in 95% of participants one month after injection. In all participants, a T-cell response was induced, peaking by day 14, and maintained two months after injection.

Neutralising activity against SARS-CoV-2 (as assessed by the MNA80 assay) was seen in 91% of participants one month after vaccination and in 100% of participants who received a second dose. The levels of neutralising antibodies seen in participants receiving either one or two doses were in a similar range to those seen in convalescent COVID-19 patients. Strong correlations were observed across neutralisation assays.

The early safety responses confirmed that transient local and systemic reactions were common in the AZD1222 group and were comparable to previous trials and other adenoviral vector vaccines.1-4 They included temporary injection site pain and tenderness, mild-to-moderate headache, fatigue, chills, feverishness, malaise and muscle ache. No serious adverse events were reported with AZD1222, and reactions were lessened with the use of prophylactic paracetamol, a pain killer, and occurred less frequently after a second dose.

Professor Andrew Pollard, Chief investigator of the Oxford Vaccine Trial at Oxford University and co-author of the trial, said: “The interim Phase I/II data for our coronavirus vaccine shows that the vaccine did not lead to any unexpected reactions and had a similar safety profile to previous vaccines of this type. The immune responses observed following vaccination are in line with what we expect will be associated with protection against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, although we must continue with our rigorous clinical trial programme to confirm this. We saw the strongest immune response in participants who received two doses of the vaccine, indicating that this might be a good strategy for vaccination.”

Mene Pangalos, Executive Vice President, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said: “We are encouraged by the Phase I/II interim data showing AZD1222 was capable of generating a rapid antibody and T-cell response against SARS-CoV-2. While there is more work to be done, today’s data increases our confidence that the vaccine will work and allows us to continue our plans to manufacture the vaccine at scale for broad and equitable access around the world.”

Late-stage Phase II/III trials are currently underway in the UK, Brazil and South Africa and are due to start in the US. Trials will determine how well the vaccine will protect from the COVID-19 disease and measure safety and immune responses in different age ranges and at various doses.

In parallel, AstraZeneca continues to fulfil its commitment for broad and equitable access to the vaccine, should late-stage clinical trials prove successful. So far, commitments to supply more than two billion doses of the vaccine have been agreed with the UK, US, Europe’s Inclusive Vaccines Alliance, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness, Gavi the Vaccine Alliance and Serum Institute of India.

We could make a real difference by targeting extra spending in areas where there are problems, such as in oncology - if spending is what is needed, but there must be a reason why cancer care has worse outcomes here than elsewhere.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:44 pm
Regarding the spending it’s ranked in USD 25% of the comparison lost in sterling depreciation.

Keep clapping.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:45 pm Saint, what would be a realistic time frame from where we are now to gaining a semblance of normality?

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:54 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:44 pm
Regarding the spending it’s ranked in USD 25% of the comparison lost in sterling depreciation.

It was nominated in dollars but also measured in percentage points of GDP

Perhaps you could explain how the sterling depreciation works in this case as it's the first I've heard of it regarding health care spending comparisons.

Keep clapping.

What's wrong with you?

Carter's Choice wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:39 pm Is this thread Bimboman arguing with every singe other poster?

PlanetGlyndwr wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 3:33 pm

Carter's Choice wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:39 pm Is this thread Bimboman arguing with every singe other poster?

Death, Taxes, Bimbot off his meds..

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:09 am “Govt didn’t want to alarm the public”

That’s not what Bimboh said happened