Coronavirus

[Red Phoenix]

5 days ago from the BBC : No major outbreaks found at government mass pilot events

 

The Guardian today : 1,300 Scotland fans who travelled to London later tested positive for Covid

 

Looks like any doubt about a third wave has passed now.

 

 

[Section_31]

5 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

5 days ago from the BBC : No major outbreaks found at government mass pilot events

 

The Guardian today : 1,300 Scotland fans who travelled to London later tested positive for Covid

 

Looks like any doubt about a third wave has passed now.

 

 

 

Sturgeon reassured Scots that the increase was not resulting in a commensurate rise in people becoming seriously ill or requiring hospital treatment, and that she remained hopeful that her government would be able to continue lifting restrictions, first on 19 July, taking the whole country to level 0, and then 9 August, seeing the removal of all major legal coronavirus restrictions.

[A Red]

18 hours ago, TK421 said:

A Critique of Chris Whitty’s Role in the UK’s Response to the Covid Pandemic 

By TK421 aged 45 and three quarters 

 

Introduction 

 

The remit of this critique will be to objectively demonstrate that Chris Whitty’s (hereafter referred to as “CW”) performance in assisting the UK government to respond to the Covid pandemic has been below the standard that could be reasonably expected of someone in his position.  I will seek to objectively show that CW deserves criticism for elements of his role in the response, that he has performed below expectations and that it is reasonable to conclude as such.   

 

Naturally, this critique is written from my own perspective and is viewed through my own subjective prism of living through this pandemic and experiencing it on a day-to-day basis.  We all view these things slightly differently, and are influenced by our own world views, subjective biases and experiences.  However, even taking these matters into account, I believe it is relatively straightforward to show that at the very least CW is deserving of criticism by highlighting inconsistencies in the views he has expressed on the record in media interviews and public appearances, and in his practical approach to tackling the pandemic.  

 

I have used various sources to support the views expressed in this critique and all of the links are provided below.   

 

Expectations of CW 

 

As the UK’s Chief Medical Officer (CMO), CW holds the very highest position available in public health.  He is “the UK government’s Chief Medical Adviser and head of the public health profession”.  Needless to say, his position carries enormous overall responsibility in relation to the health and wellbeing of the UK’s general population. 

 

As such, my expectations of him are very high.  I would expect a person in his position to act with the utmost decisiveness and authority and, in the context of a global pandemic – where time is of the essence - I would expect him to act early and implement his plans as quickly as possible.  I would expect him to be a good communicator and to be able to deliver his views with logic and clarity, in a way that makes it easy for the layman to understand.  And crucially, I would expect him to have an overriding duty to act in the interests of the public he represents in his position as head of the public health profession.  If CW perceives the response of the government to be too slow or inadequate, I would expect him to voice his concerns robustly, given that his overriding duty should be to the public and not the government of the day.   

 

To conclude my expectations of CW, I would refer to a BBC website article dated 17th March 2020, carrying the headline The Man With Our Lives In His Hands, which summarised his role as “the official who will probably have the greatest impact on our everyday lives of any individual policymaker in modern times”.  

 

The “Gold Standard” Response to a Pandemic 

 

The following slide has been taken from Chris Martenson’s website “Peak Prosperity”.  This slide was formulated before the Covid pandemic broke.  It is based upon successful policies adopted by governments in South East Asian countries in response to the original SARS pandemic (often referred to as “SARS 1”).   

 

 

In my view, the stages of response illustrated in this slide make perfect sense, and a lot of them are straightforward common sense.  For example, the first and most important step to take is to halt inbound infections.  By halting inbound infections early with a robust border control policy, such as was used by the New Zealand government, the pandemic becomes manageable at an early stage.  Similarly, by adopting universal face mask use, the natural route of transmission of an airborne respiratory virus can be somewhat quelled.  All relatively straightforward. 

 

Juxtaposition of CW’s strategy and response Vs the “Gold Standard” Response 

 

In order to better understand CW, his views in relation to a pandemic and how he would propose to response to one I watched a video lecture of his predating the Covid pandemic entitled “How To Control A Pandemic”.  By doing this I sought to understand, to a reasonable extent, how he would approach the pandemic, what his advice would be and whether he would follow his own advice in a practical real-world situation.  The video is approximately an hour long and the link to the full video is provided below.  I will go into this video in some detail, with time stamp references where appropriate. 

 

The first thing I would take issue with from CW’s lecture is at 6:10 when he asserts that “being rich as a society massively hardens that society against epidemics of ANY sort”.  That being the case, why does the United States currently have the highest death toll in the world from Covid, standing at 600,000+, and why is the UK’s estimated death toll in the region of 150,000?  This assertion does not bear up to a cursory bit of scrutiny in the context of the Covid pandemic. 

 

Moving on, at 7:49 and in relation to the Middle Eastern MERS outbreak CW makes reference to large outdoor gatherings and states that the disease spreads from there.  According to CW these gatherings are “a real worry because of people becoming crowded... because of pilgrimages”.  I agree with CW on this point – large gatherings are quite obviously a concern in the context of an airborne coronavirus.  And yet the minutes of a meeting held by SAGE (of which CW is a prominent member) on 5th March 2020 concluded that “SAGE agreed that there is no evidence to suggest that banning very large gatherings would reduce transmission”.   These views are not consistent with each other and it would take some explanation from CW to justify how that sentence appeared in the minutes of the 5th March meeting, given his views expressed on this point in the video lecture.  For the avoidance of doubt, CW was in attendance at this meeting and therefore it is reasonable to presume that the minutes were written with his full approval. 

 

Fastforward to 13.16 of the video lecture and CW makes another of his assertions: “Above all else, route of transmission is the key to controlling the epidemic”.  Again, I would agree with this point of view but similarly I would argue that CW has not followed his own advice in this respect.  The main route of transmission in the case of the Covid pandemic is airborne transmission.  I have copied the slide below from CW’s lecture, where he correctly identifies airborne transmission as the main route in relation to previous coronavirus outbreaks (SARS 1 and MERS).   

 

 

This being the case, and bearing in mind that a key early stage of the “Gold Standard” approach to responding to a respiratory pandemic is adopting a policy of universal face mask use, CW’s comments and policy in relation to face masks as the pandemic spread across the UK in the first wave leave a lot to be desired.  The Independent, in an article dated 4th March 2020, reported CW stating that “in terms of wearing a mask, our advice is clear:  that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all.  So we do not advise that”.  This is an astonishing piece of advice for a person in his position to give to the general public.  CW knows that the main route of transmission is via airborne transmission, and is on record advising against the use of face masks and instead recommends the public to wash their hands regularly.  This one contradiction alone is enough to completely condemn CW and his role in the response to the pandemic.  I could finish writing this critique and immediately conclude that he is not fit for purpose on this point alone.  Now, I can understand why he gave this advice and made the statement in the terms he did, because at the time there was political pressure to provide the NHS with adequate PPE.  The view was that face masks should be reserved for the NHS and other health professionals.  This is not a view I agree with.  It is unfortunate that there is a division of responsibilities between the so–called “science” and the political response.  I am digressing slightly, but in my opinion this division of responsibilities is not helpful and should not exist.  All it leads to is a lack of accountability, where the politicians can say they were “following the science” and conversely the scientists can explain away any advice they give by saying that the advice was given but a political decision was made.  We have seen this countless times throughout the pandemic.  Nevertheless, even against this backdrop I find it to be completely intolerable and unconscionable for CW to expressly advise the UK public not to wear face masks.  Is this really the standard of behaviour and speed of response one would expect from the person leading the scientific response to a pandemic?  Clearly not.  It is woefully inept and dangerous to the UK public, in my view.  Furthermore, CW’s advice in relation to face masks flip-flopped from advising the public not to wear them to going as far as to recommend wearing them outside.  In January of this year, he said this: “If people for example are crowded together in a queue outdoors, if they’re really huddled together round a market stall or something – that is a risk with this virus – and in that situation there might be some logic to people thinking about wearing masks”.  In the space of nine months, he has veered from not recommending face masks at all to endorsing wearing them outside.  And this is the man who says that controlling the main route of transmission is the most important thing “above all else” in controlling the pandemic. 

 

Moving on from face masks, at 45:50 CW introduces a new slide (see below) to demonstrate that airborne/influenza and respiratory type viruses are the highest risk on the UK’s National Risk Register, by some considerable margin.   I simply ask, do you think the speed of his response, accuracy of his advice and level of urgency he has shown during this pandemic is commensurate to this level of risk?   

 

 

Finally, at 48:40, CW expresses his view that banning travel and screening at airports are “utterly useless”.  This has been proven to be incorrect, by countries such as Australia and New Zealand. 

 

Mistakes Made 

 

I have touched upon this above and in relation to face masks have given full comment, so will limit this section of my critique to other mistakes made by CW and his contemporaries. 

 

Firstly, there is the controversial topic of herd immunity.  As the pandemic was emerging and spreading to the UK, it appeared to many commentators in the media and press that the UK was endorsing a strategy of herd immunity.  The theory was that by allowing general immunity to build up quickly in the population the impact of the virus would be absorbed relatively quickly, allowing society to reopen and normal life to return in a shorter period of time.  Now, it is difficult to find any direct evidence of CW endorsing this policy, yet when his colleague Sir Patrick Vallance spoke about it, CW was conspicuous by his absence and there is certainly nothing on record to indicate CW speaking out against herd immunity prior to the implementation of the first national lockdown.  In mid-March, Sir Patrick Vallance gave a number of media interviews appearing to endorse a strategy of herd immunity.  “Our aim”, he told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme, is to “try and reduce the peak – not to suppress it completely, also because most people get a mild illness, to build up some degree of herd immunity whilst protecting the most vulnerable”.   Note the use of the pronoun “our”, indicating that this was a collectively agreed strategy and one which I would suggest was endorsed by CW.   He certainly did nothing to distance himself from Sir Patrick Vallance’s comments in relation to herd immunity, and therefore I believe it is reasonable to infer that he agreed with this strategy at that time.  Vallance’s comments go some way to explaining why Boris Johnson’s government was reluctant to implement the lockdowns and social distancing measures that were already in place in many parts of Europe and the world.  As Chief Medical Officer, I would suggest that CW should have intervened at this point and made a stronger case for an immediate lockdown, and should have distanced himself from any reference to a policy of herd immunity.  Suffice to say, he did neither. 

 

The second area where I believe CW and his contemporaries have fallen way short is on border control.  As stated above, in his video lecture CW asserts that banning travel is “utterly useless”.  This view has been superseded by real world events.  Many countries have successfully implemented rigorous border control policies in order to counter the threat of the pandemic.  As far as the UK is concerned, action has been slow and indecisive.  A porous “traffic light” system was eventually introduced, but it has proven to be inadequate as new variants take hold and prosper in the UK.  I have provided two links below to articles from the Daily Telegraph dating back to March 2020.  Unfortunately, these are behind paywalls but the headlines make CW’s approach to this issue clear:  “Banning flights and screenings will not stop coronavirus spread” and “How Chris Whitty’s early advice set the template to keep UK border’s open”.  CW’s remarkably casual approach to border control was also the subject of a BBC website article dated 13th March 2020, where it was explained that the UK’s approach to border control was based upon computer modelling with the intention of spreading the peak of the pandemic “until the summer months”.  Evidently this did not work, with the UK experiencing an horrific death toll in the months immediately preceding the summer. 

 

CW’s haphazard approach to border control is mirrored by his reluctance to recommend other stringent measures, which other countries implemented early on in the pandemic, such as school closures and banning mass gatherings.  As at 13th March 2020 (from the BBC website article referred to in the paragraph above), CW and his colleague Sir Patrick Vallance argued against banning mass gatherings and school closures.  Instead, their advice to the public was to wash their hands and to self-isolate if they had symptoms.  Again, their logic was based upon computer modelling.  I would submit that this style of leadership, if that is what it can be called, is not suitable for a pandemic where time is of the essence.  By refusing to recommend policies such as closing schools and banning mass gatherings at an early stage, and instead placing the emphasis on the public to self-police, the spread of the virus was surely exacerbated with fatal consequences. 

 

In view of the above, the UK’s very high death toll and the severe economic consequences the UK has suffered one could reasonably expect CW and his contemporaries to have learned from their mistakes, perhaps by looking towards other countries and territories - with better outcomes and good track records in relation SARS 1 - in order to see what they did differently, to establish what worked/did not work and to adapt accordingly.  But there seems to be none of that; no contrition, no period of reflection, no asking what went wrong, no acknowledgement that mistakes were made, no humility, no willingness to learn from mistakes and/or try something different.  When CW does change tack, for example with face masks, it is always too little, too late (a consistent theme of the UK’s response in general).  The UK government did eventually introduce a mandatory face mask policy, but it was several months after the peak of the first wave and introduced at a time when circulation of the virus was low.  We deserve better from our Chief Medical Officer, who sat passively by.  CW is a compliant individual who tailors his advice to suit whatever is politically expedient for his paymasters, and rarely challenges his political counterparts openly. 

 

A good example of this is the Dominic Cummings incident, which involved clear, multiple and flagrant breaches of lockdown rules.  CW refused to publicly condemn Dominic Cummings, and was happy to hide behind Boris Johnson’s insistence that his medical advisers should not be dragged into political controversy.  I would argue that CW should have publicly condemned Dominic Cummings’ behaviour in order to reinforce the important public message about observing lockdown rules, and similarly following the recent revelations regarding Matt Hancock.  As stated earlier in relation to my expectations of CW, his overriding duty should be to the public and protecting public health.  Instead, CW is content to hide behind a political shield.  He benefits from the questionable division of science and politics, a dichotomy upon which many bad decisions can be conveniently explained away and leads to a chronic lack of accountability.   

 

CW’s style is passive and vanilla.  I ask my readership; can you think of one decisive intervention CW has made during the entire pandemic that has made a real difference?  I cannot think of any such occasion.  Instead, I find u-turns and inconsistent views, inadequate, cumbersome and slow responses, inertia and a lack of backbone/moral compass in relation to matters such as Dominic Cummings’ breach of lockdown rules.   

 

Some Counterbalance 

 

In defence of CW it is prudent to acknowledge that he can only operate within the larger framework of which he is a small (but significant) part.  I have no doubt that if Chris Whitty were not in situ as Chief Medical Officer during this pandemic, then someone equally as compliant and politically malleable would be.  There are structural and institutional issues at play, for which CW cannot be blamed personally.  Nevertheless, CW is happy to operate in this environment so he is worthy of valid criticisms.   

 

Similarly, he is not solely response for the scientific/medical response.   In my view he is highly culpable for the UK’s poor pandemic performance, but he is far from alone;  Sir Patrick Vallance, Jonathan Van-Tam, Dido Harding, Dr Jenny Harries, Dr Susan Hopkins, Dominic Cummings and the UK government must also take their slice of the blame pie.  Sir Patrick Vallance and Dr Jenny Harries, in particular, for their comments in relation to herd immunity and mass gatherings are highly culpable.   

 

Conclusions 

 

By many objective metrics the UK has suffered badly during this pandemic in comparison to other countries.  The UK currently sits at 19th in the world on deaths per million of the population and would probably be higher if it were not for the government’s policy of limiting the total number of deaths to those who have died within 28 days of a positive test.  Globally, only six countries have higher total death tolls and total numbers of cases than the UK.  In Europe, the UK has the highest total number of deaths (by some margin, if the Office for National Statistics figures are used).  Furthermore, in England alone it is estimated that more than two million people have suffered from long Covid.  Economically, my understanding is that the UK has suffered one of the worst economic downturns out of all developed countries during the pandemic.  Regardless of any comparison, it is surely unarguable that the economic fallout has been disastrous and has not been helped by the UK’s public health response to the pandemic.  The pandemic has had a tremendously detrimental effect to the UK public both in terms of the death toll and loss of livelihood.  And these matters merely scratch the surface – there is also the cultural impact, the negative consequences on the population’s mental health, their education and so on.  The impact will be felt for decades to come, perhaps forever.  I would argue that as Chief Medical Offer, CW must shoulder a due proportion of the blame for all of these consequences for the reasons I have elaborated upon throughout this critique.  

 

Links and references

 

 

 

Coronavirus: Chief medical officer tells public not to wear masks | The Independent | The Independent

 

Banning flights and screening arrivals will not stop coronavirus spread, says Chief Medical Officer

 

What SAGE knew about coronavirus and large gatherings before Cheltenham Festival - Gloucestershire Live

 

Government shift in face coverings policy as searches for ‘face masks’ spike dramatically in the UK • THIIS Magazine

 

Learn to live with Covid in similar way to flu, says Prof Chris Whitty – video | UK news | The Guardian

 

Chris Whitty warns people to distance despite English lockdown easing or risk a second wave – as it happened | Politics | The Guardian

 

Coronavirus: Whitty and Vallance faced 'herd immunity' backlash, emails show - BBC News

 

Exactly who said what about herd immunity and when, despite government's denials - Mirror Online

 

Chris Whitty: 'No delay' in government's coronavirus response ; ITV News

 

Chris Whitty says people should think about wearing masks in busy outdoor places - Mirror Online

 

Revealed: how Chris Whitty's early advice set the template to keep UK's borders open during Covid crisis

 

Coronavirus: Why is the UK not shutting schools like other countries? - BBC News

 

Chris Whitty: The man with our lives in his hands - BBC News

 

Boris Johnson gags medical experts to stop them discussing Dominic Cummings row | The Independent | The Independent

 

Long Covid: More than two million in England may have suffered, study suggests - BBC News

You've obviously spent a lot of time and thought on this so its only fair I give you my opinion. It was too long so I didnt read it.

[Bruce Spanner]

10 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

5 days ago from the BBC : No major outbreaks found at government mass pilot events

 

The Guardian today : 1,300 Scotland fans who travelled to London later tested positive for Covid

 

Looks like any doubt about a third wave has passed now.

 

 

I can’t remember where I saw it, but they only tested around 15% of those that attended after the events.

[Red Phoenix]

3 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

Sturgeon reassured Scots that the increase was not resulting in a commensurate rise in people becoming seriously ill or requiring hospital treatment, and that she remained hopeful that her government would be able to continue lifting restrictions, first on 19 July, taking the whole country to level 0, and then 9 August, seeing the removal of all major legal coronavirus restrictions.

 

Maybe she's been taking notes from Deutsche Bank Javid. It'll be interesting to see what both of them are saying in a couple of weeks time.

[Red Phoenix]

1 minute ago, Bruce Spanner said:

I can’t remember where I saw it, but they only tested around 15% of those that attended after the events.

 

Yeah I saw something similar when checking it at the time. The BBC headline was crazy considering how much of a shambles the study was.

[Section_31]

13 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Maybe she's been taking notes from Deutsche Bank Javid. It'll be interesting to see what both of them are saying in a couple of weeks time.

We come back to the same question then, what's the solution? Stay in the house forever? 

[Bjornebye]

6 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Everything's subservient to the Almighty Covid these days, even terminal cancer. It would be funny if we weren't talking about people's lives here. This is what happens when you prioritise quantity of life over quality of life. It is unimaginably tragic.

My mum got diagnosed with bowel cancer last year, for the 3 months she lived afterwards, nobody could hug her because if she got infected that would have been it. Even on her wedding day. The only time I got to hold my mum was when she was on her death bed. Decent human beings exist. It's a shame you aren't one of them you horrible cunt. 

[Red Phoenix]

7 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

We come back to the same question then, what's the solution? Stay in the house forever? 

 

Ah I'm not suggesting anything and not pretending I have the answers. The different between the two headlines 5 days apart seems typical though. My post with the links was more of a dig at the BBC than anything else.

[Strontium]

9 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

My mum got diagnosed with bowel cancer last year, for the 3 months she lived afterwards, nobody could hug her because if she got infected that would have been it. Even on her wedding day. The only time I got to hold my mum was when she was on her death bed. Decent human beings exist. It's a shame you aren't one of them you horrible cunt. 

 

So, just to get this straight, I'm a horrible cunt and an indecent human being for thinking that people like your mum should be able to have more contact with their loved ones in their final weeks of life. Are you even going to attempt to justify that?

[Strontium]

3 hours ago, DalyanPete said:

Totally agree SD, her quality of life should be with family around her.

I'm sure if asked she would run the miniscule risk of Covid which Inthe scheme of things doesn't matter a fuck 

 

Exactly my feelings on the matter Pete. I know if I was unlucky enough to be in that situation, I would say stuff the tiny risk that the inevitable would be hastened slightly, and I would like to get as much out of my final days as possible. People aren't given the choice, though; patients aren't asked what they want. It's cruel treatment by an inhumane system.

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

So, just to get this straight, I'm a horrible cunt and an indecent human being for thinking that people like your mum should be able to have more contact with their loved ones in their final weeks of life. Are you even going to attempt to justify that?

Yes, you are a horrible cunt because throughout this thread you've used things to point score and ignored the bits where you were massively wrong. It's all about your own ego. You haven't got a fucking clue. 

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Exactly my feelings on the matter Pete. I know if I was unlucky enough to be in that situation, I would say stuff the tiny risk that the inevitable would be hastened slightly, and I would like to get as much out of my final days as possible. People aren't given the choice, though; patients aren't asked what they want. It's cruel treatment by an inhumane system.

4 million people have died from this 

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

4 million people have died from after contracting this 

 

Always happy to correct.

[Bjornebye]

18 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Always happy to correct.

Correct what

[Bjornebye]

On 10/08/2020 at 22:44, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Yep, it is indeed fucking embarrassing how the lot of you continue to fail to explain why the dozens of facts posted aren't in fact facts.

 

When this thing is over and done in this country by winter, and there's no second wave, how many of you will be big enough to apologise?

I am confident that the vast majority of posters on here would have been decent enough to apologise. Unlike you, you fucking shit-bag. 

[Sugar Ape]

22 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

We come back to the same question then, what's the solution? Stay in the house forever? 

Why is it made out the only options are no restrictions at all or lockdown forever? I don't think I've ever seen anyone advocating everyone stay at home forever yet it always gets brought up like people are constantly suggesting it.

 

The hope with vaccines is once we get a certain percentage of the population double jabbed then rates will fall to a more manageable level, regardless of what restrictions we have in place. We haven't reached that threshold yet with around 62% of adults double jabbed, and obviously less than that in the population as a whole when you take people under 18 into account.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest we keep some light restrictions like masks in shops and public transport until we have more of the population completely vaccinated and decide what we are going to do with regards to vaccinating the 12-17 year olds that is currently being discussed. In fact, it seems to me to be completely sensible to do so and the reason we can't is because the Tory backbenchers and Tory press are obsessed with 'freedom day' like we're at war with another country rather than a virus. It doesn't just vanish on the 19th July because we want it to.

 

None of that means I love lockdown or think we should stay at home forever. I've just stayed over at Alton Towers for three nights and didn't find it too much of an inconvenience to wear a mask indoors and socially distance in queues. There are plenty of good reasons to keep cases low and the restrictions we have now aren't holding them in check as it is. Less death and hospitalisations until we get more people covered by two doses, less long Covid, less people disrupted at work and school if they are in contact with people who test positive, less chance the virus mutates. 

 

None of this really matters anyway I suppose as Javid has already said his priority is the economy so restrictions are going on the 19th July whether it is a good idea or not.

 

[Colonel Bumcunt]

10 hours ago, Tj hooker said:

My lad is 27 he's had both jabs now , Wales is ahead of the curve in the UK 

We had an issue waiting for Moderna jabs.  We only had AZ here for everyone, so they couldn't give that to under 30's and there was a delay in Moderna being shipped here and kept chilled.  

[Bruce Spanner]

News from the GLP...

 

So far so Tory until the last part which for a legally tight ship to say means they know something big is coming.

 

Interesting, especially as Prefect Williamson has just signed off on school testing, which is effectively pointless.

 

https://goodlawproject.org/news/vip-lane-for-testing-contracts/

 

The National Audit Office has previously expressed concern over the lack of transparency in relation to procurement decisions made in the PPE VIP lane. The revelation that key elements of VIP Test and Trace procurement were conducted using a private gmail address piles fuel on that fire.

 

How could civil servants monitor discussions between Ministerial contacts and an industry secondee when they were taking place via private gmail addresses?

 

Back in October, Good Law Project revealed the red carpet-to-riches VIP lane that benefited so many associates of Ministers by helping them to win vast PPE contracts. This new evidence corroborates reports in November from unnamed insiders that there was a VIP channel for testing supplies. The total spend on Test and Trace is £37bn, dwarfing that for PPE.

 

Responding to Good Law Project, Simon Greaves said: ‘I used a DHSC email account and computer for the majority of my time…’’ but also confirmed he used his personal gmail account from his start date in April through to May.

 

Good Law Project has also approached the DHSC for comment.

 

Further questions need to be asked about how Government came to spend over £3bn – without any competition – with Innova, whose testing kits have been described by the US Food and Drug Administration as “presenting a risk to health” and subject to “the most serious type of recall.” Good Law Project understands extraordinary new revelations about Innova will emerge in the coming days.

[Bjornebye]

The anti-lockdown brigade really are an army of muppets. "Set us free clap clap clap" while marching past people sat outside pubs. Karen as fuck. 

[Mook]

2 hours ago, Section_31 said:

 

Sturgeon reassured Scots that the increase was not resulting in a commensurate rise in people becoming seriously ill or requiring hospital treatment, and that she remained hopeful that her government would be able to continue lifting restrictions, first on 19 July, taking the whole country to level 0, and then 9 August, seeing the removal of all major legal coronavirus restrictions.

She's not reassuring any cunt.

 

Anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows this shite is never going to end.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Always happy to correct.

George Floyd didn't die of asphyxiation from a knee on the neck. He died because his neck was too close to the ground.

[Strontium]

18 minutes ago, Shooter in the Motor said:

George Floyd didn't die of asphyxiation from a knee on the neck. He died because his neck was too close to the ground.

 

As a matter of fact, when he died he was positive for covid, therefore he would officially count as a covid death in this country. Thanks for proving my point so neatly.

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

As a matter of fact, when he died he was positive for covid, therefore he is officially a covid death. Thanks for proving my point so neatly.

Thanks for proving mine. 

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Thanks for proving mine. 

 

You had a point? Can't say I've spotted one in more than 1,500 pages.