Britain - The Official Thread

[DG_Silva]

Do you not agree with this?

I don't necessarily blanket agree with it either but just curious why it was in your tick in the bad box paragraph.

Some times there isn't the time to wait for the House of Commons to congregate to choose which action to take.

 

[Famine]

Do you not agree with this?

I don't necessarily blanket agree with it either but just curious why it was in your tick in the bad box paragraph.

Requiring debate among however many MPs decide to turn up to such a discussion severely limits the effectiveness of a rapid response.

Military action should be part of the executive branch's powers, not the legislative branch - though that means the branch as a whole and not necessarily the fiat of a single person. That also does not protect it from examination after-the-fact by the legislative and judicial branches.

 

[mustafur]

Requiring debate among however many MPs decide to turn up to such a discussion severely limits the effectiveness of a rapid response.

Military action should be part of the executive branch's powers, not the legislative branch - though that means the branch as a whole and not necessarily the fiat of a single person. That also does not protect it from examination after-the-fact by the legislative and judicial branches.

Given the fact the executive branch can be changed without a democratic process in the UK, do you think thats wise?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Given the fact the executive branch can be changed without a democratic process in the UK, do you think thats wise?

It can't, the Prime Minister is selected from elected officials as is (at least) the majority of the cabinet. The legislative branch is also comprised of sitting, elected Members of the House. The judiciary that enacts and interprets the legislature's output is not elected and is changed without democratic process.

 

[MatskiMonk]

It can't, the Prime Minister is selected from elected officials as is (at least) the majority of the cabinet

I'm not say necessarily that it's wrong for us to do it this way, but the Democratic control over the executive is weak at very best. Only a fraction of the population vote for each MP and when doing so they certainly have no idea if that MP will end up as a cabinet minister.

Choosing someone for a role based on what they'll do for their local community isn't the same as choosing someone with a say on whether we go to war or not.

 

[mustafur]

It can't, the Prime Minister is selected from elected officials as is (at least) the majority of the cabinet. The legislative branch is also comprised of sitting, elected Members of the House. The judiciary that enacts and interprets the legislature's output is not elected and is changed without democratic process.

Each elected official represents the area they serve technically, the party can sack and reappoint a new PM without a public vote and that is a change in Executive Branch, the same thing happens here and Atleast in my eyes is a major flaw in the party system.

The UK already has First past the post though so when the party votes to oust a leader the effective democratic process is being halved again, you could easily find an executive branch being led by a leader who less then 25% of the public voted for(it could be much lower then that as well).

 

[polysmut]

The UK already has First past the post though so when the party votes to oust a leader the effective democratic process is being halved again, you could easily find an executive branch being led by a leader who less then 25% of the public voted for(it could be much lower then that as well).

The current prime minister received 25,351 votes in the general election.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14001007

 

[baldgye]

Each elected official represents the area they serve technically, the party can sack and reappoint a new PM without a public vote and that is a change in Executive Branch, the same thing happens here and Atleast in my eyes is a major flaw in the party system.

The UK already has First past the post though so when the party votes to oust a leader the effective democratic process is being halved again, you could easily find an executive branch being led by a leader who less then 25% of the public voted for(it could be much lower then that as well).

I don't think that it's really that simple, because we elect a party not a leader.
It's up to that individual party to elect a leader. Indeed we don't get to decide on the cabinet that will help the leader rule the country and decide international and monetary policies either.

Due to our FPTP system, more often than not the party that wins the election has gotten less than half the % of the populations support.

 

[Famine]

Each elected official represents the area they serve technically, the party can sack and reappoint a new PM without a public vote and that is a change in Executive Branch, the same thing happens here and Atleast in my eyes is a major flaw in the party system.

The party leader serves at the fiat of the party, and the party serves at the fiat of the electorate.

The only time I can recall someone becoming PM without having to go through a party election in addition to being voted into their seat by the public and their party being voted into power by the public was Gordon Brown - and he technically did go through a party leadership election, it's just that he ran unopposed. One other MP did contest it - John McDonnell - but he didn't get enough nominations to appear on a ballot.

Nonetheless, that is the role of government. Parliament - the Commons - is the legislative branch, and should not be involved in the executive branch except, as with the judicial branch, to determine what is legal before and after the fact. Legislative (Parliament) creates law, executive (Government) implements law, judicial (Supreme Court) decides whether the implementation was lawful.

The UK already has First past the post though so when the party votes to oust a leader the effective democratic process is being halved again, you could easily find an executive branch being led by a leader who less then 25% of the public voted for(it could be much lower then that as well).

Which is its own topic.

Disregarding the notion that the public votes for the PM - which it doesn't - Blair's third term came off the back of 21.6% of the electorate. Corbyn scored the same amount in 2019 but was considered a dismal failure (also scoring 27.5% in 2017, losing both elections to enormous Conservative support at 29.1% and 29.3% respectively).

 

[baldgye]

While I’m not invested in Femi’s particular point, the video clip from James O’Brien’s radio show seems like a good reminder of who are acting PM is...

 

[Famine]

I've been directed to the above post regarding my query in the COVID-19 thread:

we have an acting Prime Minster who's openly said he's against human rights and economic support

Who are you talking about? We don't have an acting PM, and neither Boris Johnson or - I assume - Dominic Raab, have ever to my knowledge said openly that they are "against human rights", so what makes you say otherwise? Raab is actually known for his work in human rights, and Johnson is a small government, one-nation Conservative - one that emphasises individual rights (and responsibilities) over "social contract". Though at the moment it looks quite like we're living in a police state from the outside (though we aren't).

While I’m not invested in Femi’s particular point, the video clip from James O’Brien’s radio show seems like a good reminder of who are acting PM is...

As this is a Britain-specific sub-section of the discussion there, and the relevant post is above, I'll put my reply in this thread:

I don't support The Human Rights Act and I don't believe in social or economic rights.

That's what he says, not what the caption says he says*, nor what you claim he said.

And neither do I. That's a very different proposition from not believing in human rights - just look in our Human Rights Thread where I vigorously defend rights. Here's why:

The Act enshrines the ECHR into UK law, and the ECHR is an attempt to codify human rights, which - as with almost all such attempts - does not succeed, and actually creates conditions which deny basic human rights, by establishing the right to other people's labour (which it also denies, thus contradicting itself).

I don't agree with the Human Rights Act precisely because I do accept human rights. I don't know what Raab's position on human rights is, other than his long, long history of working in and being an advocate for human rights, but in that clip he doesn't say he doesn't believe in them. He says he doesn't support the HRA, which is the ECHR.


He's also not "acting PM". He's First Secretary of State, which means he can speak for the PM but he cannot exercise the powers of the office. It's a "first among equals" role where he requires consent of the Cabinet for any major decisions (like war) which occur when the PM is wholly incapacitated; the PM remains the PM until death, resignation, or is voted out by government, party or people, and can take decisions against the Cabinet's wishes.

If the FSOS is also incapacitated, the Chancellor would assume the same functions.


*Which begs the question of why law graduate Femi Oluwole is making fake captions for the audio you can hear proving it's fake on clips he's also sharing...

 

[baldgye]

I've been directed to the above post regarding my query in the COVID-19 thread:



As this is a Britain-specific sub-section of the discussion there, and the relevant post is above, I'll put my reply in this thread:

That's what he says, not what the caption says he says*, nor what you claim he said.

And neither do I. That's a very different proposition from not believing in human rights - just look in our Human Rights Thread where I vigorously defend rights. Here's why:

The Act enshrines the ECHR into UK law, and the ECHR is an attempt to codify human rights, which - as with almost all such attempts - does not succeed, and actually creates conditions which deny basic human rights, by establishing the right to other people's labour (which it also denies, thus contradicting itself).

I don't agree with the Human Rights Act precisely because I do accept human rights. I don't know what Raab's position on human rights is, other than his long, long history of working in and being an advocate for human rights, but in that clip he doesn't say he doesn't believe in them. He says he doesn't support the HRA, which is the ECHR.


He's also not "acting PM". He's First Secretary of State, which means he can speak for the PM but he cannot exercise the powers of the office. It's a "first among equals" role where he requires consent of the Cabinet for any major decisions (like war) which occur when the PM is wholly incapacitated; the PM remains the PM until death, resignation, or is voted out by government, party or people, and can take decisions against the Cabinet's wishes.

If the FSOS is also incapacitated, the Chancellor would assume the same functions.


*Which begs the question of why law graduate Femi Oluwole is making fake captions for the audio you can hear proving it's fake on clips he's also sharing...

Okay, I'm done talking with you. I took your original question (in the other thread) to be the start of an open conversation about something you'd thought about. I thought it would be interesting discussion. Unfortunately you've turned it into an boring and petty argument.

I linked you the above post in a pm as I thought, maybe you'll find it interesting (without dragging this nonsense into the main forum), but no and instead just continued.
In this instance you are correct, I missed out the word 'act' in my original post... how foolish and idiotic a boob I am.

Goodbye.

 

[Famine]

Okay, I'm done talking with you.

That day passed a long time ago. You simply don't want to address (or read) the majority of any post I type, preferring instead to dump a short, sometimes even one-line, response that shows you've made zero effort to be involved in a conversation. You don't discuss any points made, you just pretend they don't exist because you don't agree with them.

But the effort I make in responding to you isn't for your benefit alone, so I'll continue to do so if you continue to make posts that skirt around the edges of reality or swaddled in barely concealed hypocrisy. You don't get to post opinions unchallenged here on GTPlanet.

I took your original question (in the other thread) to be the start of an open conversation about something you'd thought about. I thought it would be interesting discussion. Unfortunately you've turned it into an boring and petty argument.

I'm not arguing. I asked you a question in a thread, which you chose - as per my previous comment - to not respond to in the thread. When it transpired that the source of your statement was the post above (which doesn't say what you said it did) I made my response to that post.

There is no argument in my response. Simply put, the dude who isn't what you said he is didn't say what you say he did. And I've explained why on both counts. You find it boring and petty, because it catches you out in a lie.

I linked you the above post in a pm as I thought, maybe you'll find it interesting (without dragging this nonsense into the main forum), but no and instead just continued.

It's relevant to this thread, because it uses a lie to attack a prominent British politician - one who is filling in for the PM - and some confusion over the role of that person in British politics. Many people are under the misapprehension that Raab is the acting PM, but he is not. Again, the response is not for your benefit alone.

In this instance you are correct, I missed out the word 'act' in my original post... how foolish and idiotic a boob I am.

Two words - you forgot the "the" - and it's far worse than that. You took a Tweet at face value and assumed that the caption on it was genuine, then later posted the caption as if it were true in another thread without even a moment's consideration - without even clicking on the play button in the Tweet that proved that the caption was in fact a fabrication.

That means that you've either been hoodwinked by someone with a known agenda, or that you knew all along that it was fake and posted a lie on purpose, or that you don't care either way because you have the same agenda.

If it's the former, that puts you in the same camp as boomer Facebook mums who post COVID cures: zero critical thought. That's best-case. The fact you don't want to engage with anything that challenges your opinion - and judging by your new user title, are now actively proud of posting things you know to be lies - would appear to put you in the last bracket.

 

[baldgye]

Spoiler

The fact you don't want to engage with anything that challenges your opinion - and judging by your new user title, are now actively proud of posting things you know to be lies - would appear to put you in the last bracket.

Follow up attacks, not overly shocking. I thought the title you gave me was aumising which is why I donned it.

While I’m not invested in Femi’s particular point, the video clip from James O’Brien’s radio show seems like a good reminder of who are acting PM is...

From the post I posted the video clip on. I listen to the show and that clip has been floating about all over the place, I just happened to pick that one (I even distanced myself from Femi's tweet in my post).
You don't have to read the captions (it's a radio-show after all). I actually made a very simple mistake which you jumped down my throat on and instead of engaging in even considerate chat, just attacked it.

and some confusion over the role of that person in British politics. Many people are under the misapprehension that Raab is the acting PM, but he is not. Again, the response is not for your benefit alone.

This is another example of how pointlessly aggressive you are, instead of (let us be generous) and say correct my faux pas, it is just another avenue for attack, it is so needless. And I use that video as evidence to attack an MP because of not only his opener (which to me is pretty worrying), but then how he then goes on to be little vital social services which save lives. But alas, I’m not given a pass because this isn’t a friendly an open conversation but a fact you stated and will now argue aggressively until you’ve won. Handing out personal attacks while you go.

The fact you don't want to engage with anything that challenges your opinion...

This is just a lie.

Do we have to contiune, or will to contiune to berate me where ever I post in this forum?

I actually came to post this;
Anti-Corbyn Labour officials worked to lose general election to oust leader, leaked dossier finds (2017 election)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html

Pretty crazy, the more and more I read about in inner workins of the Labour party the more and more it resembles DOSAC

 

[Famine]

Okay, I'm done talking with you.

If you're "done talking" with me, stop talking with me. If you're not, carry on.

Follow up attacks, not overly shocking.

No attack, a mere statement of a posting pattern established over at least a year.

From the post I posted the video clip on. I listen to the show and that clip has been floating about all over the place, I just happened to pick that one (I even distanced myself from Femi's tweet in my post).
You don't have to read the captions (it's a radio-show after all). I actually made a very simple mistake which you jumped down my throat on and instead of engaging in even considerate chat, just attacked it.

Attacked?

I asked you twice who the person you were talking about was, and it turned out to be that post - in which the person talking is not what you say they are, and does not say what you said they did. I corrected both, entirely attack-free, and now you have new information so you don't make the same mistakes again.

You're choosing to read it as an attack for some reason.

This is another example of how pointlessly aggressive you are, instead of (let us be generous) and say correct my faux pas, it is just another avenue for attack, it is so needless. And I use that video as evidence to attack an MP because of not only his opener (which to me is pretty worrying), but then how he then goes on to be little vital social services which save lives. But alas, I’m not given a pass because this isn’t a friendly an open conversation but a fact you stated and will now argue aggressively until you’ve won. Handing out personal attacks while you go.

And again you're reading aggression for some reason. How is "Many people are under the misapprehension that Raab is the acting PM, but he is not. Again, the response is not for your benefit alone." aggressive? Many people are - I've seen people calling Raab the acting PM even in the media - but he isn't.

As for "personal attacks" I have made none. If you view being corrected as a personal attack then I can't help you - though I might suggest not posting things that aren't correct.

This is just a lie.

It's a statement of a posting pattern established over at least a year. The last two posts you've made and quoted me in follow that pattern - you ignore the bulk of what's been said, and post a short (one or two paragraphs, of one or two lines each) response where you play the victim or punt in some sarcasm in lieu of conversation.

Do we have to contiune, or will to contiune to berate me where ever I post in this forum?

But the effort I make in responding to you isn't for your benefit alone, so I'll continue to do so if you continue to make posts that skirt around the edges of reality or swaddled in barely concealed hypocrisy. You don't get to post opinions unchallenged here on GTPlanet.

If you're "done talking" with me, stop talking with me. If you're not, carry on.

 

[baldgye]

If you're "done talking" with me, stop talking with me. If you're not, carry on.

No attack, a mere statement of a posting pattern established over at least a year.

Since I stated that you updated your post and suddenly started replying to posts (when previously you'd largely ignored me).
The amount of time I spend talking to other users who I don't agree with in the Brexit thread alone should be enough to show that I engage with people who hold different opinions to mine, yet you continue to lie about me.

If it's the former, that puts you in the same camp as boomer Facebook mums who post COVID cures: zero critical thought. That's best-case. The fact you don't want to engage with anything that challenges your opinion - and judging by your new user title, are now actively proud of posting things you know to be lies - would appear to put you in the last bracket.

The COVID thread is one I setup and I tried to keep informed news posts in, while working. I also tried to keep the OP up to date with info to help keep people safe.
Yet now, after this one conversation I'm on par with a boomer mum posting fake cures on Facebook? Can't imagine why I've taken that as an attack... and this is based on what, a small mistake (as in the context of the conversation, it wasn’t a pivotal part) which you then, instead of trying to engage in a conversation, used as a point to attack me with.

But the effort I make in responding to you isn't for your benefit alone, so I'll continue to do so if you continue to make posts that skirt around the edges of reality or swaddled in barely concealed hypocrisy. You don't get to post opinions unchallenged here on GTPlanet.

So now I am labelled as a someone akin to posting fake virus cures on Facebook, as someone with zero ciritcal tought and that refusing to engage with anyone who disagrees with me, because we couldn't agree that we should be upsetting terminal child cancer patients?

 

[Famine]

Since I stated that you updated your post and suddenly started replying to posts (when previously you'd largely ignored me).

Who've I been trying to converse with in this thread previously then, regarding the election and referendum?

Also my post before you said you were done talking to me has had no updates since you did:

If it had, there'd be a "History" link next to the "Delete" one, for me and for all site staff.

The amount of time I spend talking to other users who I don't agree with in the Brexit thread alone should be enough to show that I engage with people who hold different opinions to mine, yet you continue to lie about me.

You respond in the same way to others who don't agree with you.

The COVID thread is one I setup and I tried to keep informed news posts in, while working. I also tried to keep the OP up to date with info to help keep people safe.

Cool.

Yet now, after this one conversation I'm on par with a boomer mum posting fake cures on Facebook?

Have you been fooled by Femi - someone with a known agenda - into believing something is true without checking it? That was the conditional for that part of that paragraph. I don't think that you have.

Can't imagine why I've taken that as an attack... and this is based on what, a small mistake (as in the context of the conversation, it wasn’t a pivotal part) which you then, instead of trying to engage in a conversation, used as a point to attack me with.

I made this entire post engaging with you regarding that matter. There's literally nothing but engagement, and explanations (for the benefit of you and others) why it was not correct. This was your response:

Okay, I'm done talking with you. I took your original question (in the other thread) to be the start of an open conversation about something you'd thought about. I thought it would be interesting discussion. Unfortunately you've turned it into an boring and petty argument.

You even quoted the post which engaged with you before you typed that. For you to act in that post and then again in this like I've attacked you when I did nothing but what you say I didn't is exactly what I mean about your posts.

So now I am labelled as a someone akin to posting fake virus cures on Facebook, as someone with zero ciritcal tought and that refusing to engage with anyone who disagrees with me

Actually, that's the benefit of the doubt position. I think you're smarter than that.

because we couldn't agree that we should be upsetting terminal child cancer patients?

As is that. Your nice little payoff line there shows just how little attention you paid to what I said, which was that it was hypocritical of Maitlis (or anyone who agreed with her point) to deride that language when used to describe a 56-year old COVID-19 patient if she (or they) would not also deride that language when used to describe child cancer patients. I mean, part of your original objection was that when used to describe child cancer patients - basically because it's not nice, and it's comforting to them and their family to use that language - so it shouldn't be "mental gymnastics" to think that the same should apply when describing the adult. They may have family, and children (whether biological and claimed or not), who need comforting too.

If you wanted to engage you wouldn't be inventing the idea that anyone wants to be mean to terminal child cancer patients. But you are.


Now, I'd suggest that if you want to revisit that discussion, it's still there in the other thread. If you want to continue the discussion about Dominic Raab - who is the First Secretary of State, and not the acting Prime Minister (I explained the difference in the post you quoted before saying you were done talking to me) - and his position on human rights and the Human Rights Act, that can be done here or in the Human Rights thread; that's actually a good place for discussing the differences between rights and laws about rights. If you want to continue talking about me however, I have a Conversation inbox.


Edit: Actually, we can continue the Maitlis discussion in here too - Newsnight is a UK TV show, and I suppose it's more appropriate in this thread than the COVID-19 one. It's also another example of how the two sides of the political spectrum in the UK media like to be abusive and rude, but play the innocent if it comes back across the net.

 

[baldgye]

Cool.

Thanks.

You respond in the same way to others who don't agree with you.

In that case, it seems to me like I'm no longer welcome/wanted in here. I thought I had pretty good discussions and talks with many users I didn't agree with, clearly I was mistaken.

 

[Dotini]

$20 million gambled on home tests kits that resulted in government embarrassment seems like not such a big deal in the greater scheme of things. Still, the New York Times wrote about it, so here it is.

U.K. Paid $20 Million for New Coronavirus Tests. They Didn’t Work.

Facing a global scramble for materials, British officials bought millions of unproven kits from China in a gamble that became an embarrassment.

Parliament in London. Britain is aiming to conduct 100,000 coronavirus tests a day by May, but as of this week was still doing less than 20,000 a day.Credit...Andrew Testa for The New York Times

By David D. Kirkpatrick and Jane Bradley

• Published April 16, 2020Updated April 17, 2020, 5:37 a.m. ET

LONDON — The two Chinese companies were offering a risky proposition: two million home test kits said to detect antibodies for the coronavirus for at least $20 million, take it or leave it.

The asking price was high, the technology was unproven and the money had to be paid upfront. And the buyer would be required to pick up the crate loads of test kits from a facility in China.

Yet British officials took the deal, according to a senior civil servant involved, then confidently promised tests would be available at pharmacies in as little as two weeks. “As simple as a pregnancy test,” gushed Prime Minister Boris Johnson. “It has the potential to be a total game changer.”

There was one problem, however. The tests did not work.

Found to be insufficiently accurate by a laboratory at Oxford University, half a million of the tests are now gathering dust in storage. Another 1.5 million bought at a similar price from other sources have also gone unused. The fiasco has left embarrassed British officials scrambling to get back at least some of the money.


“They might perhaps have slightly jumped the gun,” said Prof. Peter Openshaw of Imperial College London, a member of the government’s New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. “There is a huge pressure on politicians to come out and say things that are positive.”

A spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care said that the government had ordered the smallest number of tests allowed by the sellers and that it would try to recover the money, without specifying how.

The ill-starred purchases are in some ways a parable of the risks in the escalating scrum among competing governments racing for an edge in the fight against the pandemic.

“As simple as a pregnancy test,” Prime Minister Boris Johnson said at a news conference. “It has the potential to be a total game changer.”Credit...Will Oliver/EPA, via Shutterstock
The still-emerging tests for antibodies formed in response to the virus are the next stage in the battle. By enabling public health officials to assess where the disease has spread and who might have some immunity, widespread use of the tests is seen as a critical step in determining how and when to lift the lockdownscurrently paralyzing societies and economies in much of the world.

“You can’t lift the lockdown as long as you are not testing massively,” said Nicolas Locker, a professor of virology at the University of Surrey. “As long as the government is not testing in the community, we are going to be on lockdown.”

The gamble on the Chinese antibody tests, though, is also a barometer of the desperation British officials felt as public pressure has mounted over their slow response to the virus. One prominent expert, Jeremy Farrar, the head of the Wellcome Trust, a British nonprofit that is a major funder of medical research, recently warned that “the U.K. is likely to be certainly one of the worst, if not the worst affected, country in Europe.”

Long before the development of an antibody test, Germany, for example, the continent’s leader in containing the virus, began conducting as many as 50,000 diagnostic tests a day to help trace and isolate cases. That rate is now nearly 120,000 a day.

As of Wednesday, Britain was still conducting less than 20,000diagnostic tests a day. Having missed a previous target of 25,000 diagnostic tests a day by the middle of April, officials are now promising to reach 100,000 a day by the end of the month and as many as 250,000 a day soon after that.

British officials have said that they started out behind because they lack major private testing companies of the sort found in Germany and the United States, which are capable of manufacturing and performing tens of thousands of diagnostic tests.

But by the time Britain began pushing in earnest to expand its capacity, it was also trailing behind most of Europe in the competition to buy up the limited supply of compounds, tubes and even swabs needed for diagnostic tests to determine a current infection with the virus.

So when the Chinese offers of antibody tests arrived, the officials knew that almost every government in the world was hunting for them, too. Nationalists like President Trump were pressuring domestic suppliers not to sell outside their borders. Oil-rich Persian Gulf princes were bidding up prices.

Medical companies in China, where the virus first emerged, seemed to hold all the cards, typically demanding yes-or-no decisions from buyers with full payment upfront in as little as 24 hours.

The two Chinese companies offering the antibody tests, AllTest Biotech and Wondfo Biotech, both said their products met the health, safety and environmental standards set by the European Union. Public health officials reviewed the specifications on paper while the British Foreign Ministry hurriedly dispatched diplomats in China to ensure the companies existed and to examine their products.

Representatives of both AllTest and Wondfo declined to discuss prices.

Within days of the deal, enthusiastic health officials back in London were promising that the new tests would vault Britain into the vanguard of international efforts to combat the virus.

Appearing on March 25 before a parliamentary committee, Sharon Peacock, a professor of public health and microbiology at Cambridge University who is the senior public health official overseeing infectious diseases, testified that the tests would require only a pin prick in the privacy of one’s home and would soon be available at minimal cost from either local pharmacies or Amazon.

Sign up to receive an email when we publish a new story about thecoronavirus outbreak.


“Testing the test is a small matter,” Prof. Peacock assured lawmakers. “I anticipate that it would be done by the end of this week.”

After quietly admitting last week that the testing had in fact proven unsuccessful, health officials are now defending the purchase as prudent planning and valuable experience.

It was to be expected, Prof. Chris Whitty, Britain’s chief medical officer, said in a news conference. “It would be very surprising if first out of the gate we got to the best outcome that we could for this kind of test,” he said. “It made a lot of sense to get started early.”

But Greg Clark, the chairman of a parliamentary committee examining the coronavirus response, said the government’s promises appeared unrealistic.

“There is no country in the world that is able to operate in massive scale antibody tests yet,” he said in an interview.

“I think it’s now clear,” he added, “that we should have moved earlier and more expansively to make use of all of the testing facilities that we could have.”

After British complaints about the test kits surfaced, both Chinese companies blamed British officials and politicians for misunderstanding or exaggerating the utility of the tests. Wondfo told Global Times, a Chinese newspaper, that its product was intended only as a supplement for patients who had already tested positive for the virus.

AllTest said in a statement on its website that the tests were “only used by professionals,” not by patients at home.

Doctors say the government’s descriptions of the antibody tests could also be misleading.

By comparing the antibody tests to pregnancy tests, officials seemed to be suggesting the antibody tests would determine whether a patient was currently infected. But a discernible level of antibodies may not appear in the blood until as long as 20 days after infection — meaning a person with the virus would test negative until then.

The British military laboratory at Porton Down is also working on an antibody test, but primarily to help public health officials assess the course of the pandemic by surveying samples of the population, not to inform individual patients. The government is hoping to repurpose some of the stored Chinese-made kits for this sort of population-level testing.

Do-it-yourself pinprick tests like the ones the British government ordered from China are far more complicated and much further off than such laboratory tests, researchers say. It is not yet certain what degree of immunity recovery from a past infection may confer, either.

Rapid antibody tests “have limited utility” for patients, the World Health Organization warned in an April 8 statement, telling doctors that such tests remained unfit for clinical purposes until they were proved to be accurate and effective.

British officials, though, were eager for a breakthrough.

Even in late March, as the pandemic overwhelmed hospitals in Italy and Iran, British officials brushed off the advice of the World Health Organization to expand diagnostic testing as quickly as possible.

By the time Britain began pushing in earnest to expand its testing, every country in the world was competing for the same materials.

To make up the shortfall, academic research laboratories have sought to convert themselves into small-scale clinical testing facilities, typically focusing on the needs of local hospitals.

“If it comes around from the government, all well and good,” said Ravindra Gupta, professor of clinical microbiology at Cambridge University’s Department of Medicine, “but we have to prepare for nothing to come. It would be crazy to wait.”

Cancer Research UK, a nonprofit organization, is converting its research laboratories to conduct as many as 2,000 tests a day. But its capacity has been limited to a few hundred because of difficulty and delays in obtaining scarce materials, said Prof. Charles Swanton, its chief clinical officer.

Even the swabs used to obtain samples had turned out to be scarce, he said, and his laboratory ultimately agreed to pay a Chinese supplier as much as $6 a swab — about 100 times the typical cost. “It took about 10 days to get them,” Professor Swanton added.

The British division of the drug giant AstraZeneca began setting up a testing facility last month for its own essential workers, said Mene Pangalos, the executive overseeing the effort. But at the request of the British government, AstraZeneca and its rival drug company GlaxoSmithKline have teamed up to repurpose a laboratory at Cambridge University to carry out as many as 30,000 diagnostic tests a day by the beginning of May.

AstraZeneca hopes to develop a laboratory test for antibodies, too, Mr. Pangalos said. But that will take until at least the middle of next month, and a home-based test, such as the British government tried to order, would take much longer, he added.

“Everyone is overpromising at the moment,” he said. “I don’t want to overpromise.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/world/europe/coronavirus-antibody-test-uk.html

 

[Liquid]

I have a genuine question about Boris Johnson catching covid.

How is it possible for someone who needed to go to intensive care be fit enough to be discharged from hospital two days later? Even assuming overcautious care, it seemed far quicker than anything else reported on covid so far.

 

[MaxAttack]

I have a genuine question about Boris Johnson catching covid.

How is it possible for someone who needed to go to intensive care be fit enough to be discharged from hospital two days later? Even assuming overcautious care, it seemed far quicker than anything else reported on covid so far.

I doubt he was ever really in true ICU-worthy condition. It's understandable that doctors would take a serious dollop of over-precaution when dealing with the PM. As soon as they determined he wouldn't worsen to ventilator stage, he was let out of the ICU to free up the bed.

Pure conjecture, of course, but makes sense to me.

 

[Famine]

How is it possible for someone who needed to go to intensive care be fit enough to be discharged from hospital two days later? Even assuming overcautious care, it seemed far quicker than anything else reported on covid so far.

ICU could simply have been for monitoring, because he wasn't keeping his oxygen saturation levels ("sats" - 98%+ is normal, 94-98% is not normal, 90-94% is highly concerning, <90% makes all the machines go ping) up by himself. They'd have wanted him under close observation and on oxygen, so they were best-placed to make the decision whether to quickly alter the treatment path to something more aggressive.

Once someone is able to maintain their own sats, and assuming nothing else is obviously amiss, ICU is unnecessary. After a couple of days of observation on a ward, the patient can go home to convalesce - it's better for recovery if you do it in your own environment, and better for the hospital who can use the bed for someone not getting better on their own.

 

[PeterJB]

And as much as some people complain it's understandable that extra precautions/resources and taken with the Prime Minister.

 

[Dotini]

It's been over a month since anyone's posted in this thread. Probably not a whole lot to be proud of going on in Britain just now, so I guess it's understandable.

I saw an interesting headline story in what I take for a less than credible source. I'd like to believe it. How about you?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...is-role-britains-5g-network-wake-coronavirus/

 

[Rallywagon]

It's been over a month since anyone's posted in this thread. Probably not a whole lot to be proud of going on in Britain just now, so I guess it's understandable.

Says the well to do American hermit... if ever the pot called the kettle black.

I saw an interesting headline story in what I take for a less than credible source. I'd like to believe it. How about you?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...is-role-britains-5g-network-wake-coronavirus/

this honestly is good news for us. While all of the manufacturing will be China based, it likely means a more American based company will be picking up the slack. Someone like Cisco perhaps.
Its also good for America as it pulls more ties away from China.

 

[UKMikey]

It's been over a month since anyone's posted in this thread. Probably not a whole lot to be proud of going on in Britain just now, so I guess it's understandable.

That hasn't stopped the America thread from blossoming despite your best efforts to sanitise it of Trump news but cheers for the passive aggression.

I saw an interesting headline story in what I take for a less than credible source. I'd like to believe it. How about you?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...is-role-britains-5g-network-wake-coronavirus/

As is usual with Torygraph articles, I can't get past the paywall but swapping one controlling interest for another makes less difference to me than it would to an American. Good luck to him securing a price we can afford and let's hope whatever influence is ceded over it will be worth it whatever happens.

 

[Liquid]

It's been over a month since anyone's posted in this thread.

You don't need a continuous stream of posts in this thread to know that Dominic Cummings is a maggot.

 

[Submerged]

Man, the Dominic Cummings situation has been having me in fits of giggles during Prime Minister turn in the hot seat during the BBC Covid-19 question and answer session at 5pm.

He comes out immediately with the statement (I missed that, but it seems to be the first thing he said from the BBC Live website) and that seems odd.

I eventually get to see his body language and responses during journolists questioning about the situation and it was a really really gleeful time, because you could see he really didn't want to have to repeat himself and answer the same question in 10 different ways. But that is what he left himself open to doing so and with vague, nonsensical answers (from what I could gather).

In fact, my dad did mention to me later that he sounded like a boss telling his employees that this was a non-issue and to forget it. Which, as a Prime Minister to the public and reporters, you just can't do it that way if you wanted the public to be behind you.

It kinda seems like the whole lockdown and the easing of lockdown is going to be in some sort of trouble for now, with how badly Boris Johnson has managed this.

For me, he's lost some serious support for following the lockdown. Why bother following it any more if its not consistent?

 

[Dotini]

It seems as though the new labour leader, at least, is having some fun pulling the wings off flies.

 

[Famine]

You don't need a continuous stream of posts in this thread to know that Dominic Cummings is a maggot.

Man, the Dominic Cummings situation has been having me in fits of giggles during Prime Minister turn in the hot seat during the BBC Covid-19 question and answer session at 5pm.

He comes out immediately with the statement (I missed that, but it seems to be the first thing he said from the BBC Live website) and that seems odd.

I eventually get to see his body language and responses during journolists questioning about the situation and it was a really really gleeful time, because you could see he really didn't want to have to repeat himself and answer the same question in 10 different ways. But that is what he left himself open to doing so and with vague, nonsensical answers (from what I could gather).

In fact, my dad did mention to me later that he sounded like a boss telling his employees that this was a non-issue and to forget it. Which, as a Prime Minister to the public and reporters, you just can't do it that way if you wanted the public to be behind you.

It kinda seems like the whole lockdown and the easing of lockdown is going to be in some sort of trouble for now, with how badly Boris Johnson has managed this.

For me, he's lost some serious support for following the lockdown. Why bother following it any more if its not consistent?

Cummings strikes me as a ****, and he drives Discovery Sport and called his kid Alexander Cedd... but I am struggling to point to A Thing that he's done wrong here.

When he exhibited symptoms of COVID-19, he put his heavily dependent* son into the car (which is the preferred transport right now, due to its isolating properties) and drove him to the only place he could have appropriate care* - his own parents' place in Barnards Castle - and self-isolated at a building on the property while apparently being exceptionally unwell for ten days. While recovering he took his Government Mandated Daily Exercise in the town - allowing his wife, Mary, to also isolate for 14 days, as per the guidelines - and then returned to London.

No part of this breaches any part of the guidelines laid down on March 23, or Part 6 of The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. As yet, nobody on the dogpile has been able to cite the thing he did wrong either.


*What this means will come out in the next couple of days, and then used to batter the supposed caring qualities of the left; it's not particularly secret, but it is technically protected information.