To the nonsense in the Times and Sunday times a lot of which has been regurgitated on here as ‘fact’


Response to Sunday Times Insight article

Posted by: dhscpressoffice, Posted on: 19 April 2020 - Categories: Coronavirus (COVID-19)
A Government spokesman said: ‘This article contains a series of falsehoods and errors and actively misrepresents the enormous amount of work which was going on in government at the earliest stages of the Coronavirus outbreak.’

‘This is an unprecedented global pandemic and we have taken the right steps at the right time to combat it, guided at all times by the best scientific advice.

‘The Government has been working day and night to battle against coronavirus, delivering a strategy designed at all times to protect our NHS and save lives.

'Our response has ensured that the NHS has been given all the support it needs to ensure everyone requiring treatment has received it, as well as providing protection to businesses and reassurance to workers.

‘The Prime Minister has been at the helm of the response to this, providing leadership during this hugely challenging period for the whole nation.’

On the Sunday Times claims:

Claim – On the third Friday in January Coronavirus was already spreading around the world but the government ‘brushed aside’ the threat in an hour-long COBR meeting and said the risk to the UK public was ‘low’.

Response – At a very basic level, this is wrong. The meeting was on the fourth Friday in January. The article also misrepresents the Government’s awareness of Covid 19, and the action we took before this point. Health Secretary Matt Hancock was first alerted to Covid 19 on 3 January and spoke to Departmental officials on 6th Jan before receiving written advice from the UK Health Security Team.

He brought the issue to the attention of the Prime Minister and they discussed Covid 19 on 7 January. The government’s scientific advisory groups started to meet in mid-January and Mr Hancock instituted daily coronavirus meetings. He updated Parliament as soon as possible, on January 23rd.

The risk level was set to “Low” because at the time our scientific advice was that the risk level to the UK public at that point was low. The first UK case was not until 31 January. The specific meaning of “public health risk” refers to the risk there is to the public at precisely that point. The risk was also higher than it had been before - two days earlier it had been increased “Very Low” to “Low” in line with clinical guidance from the Chief Medical Officer.

The WHO did not formally declare that coronavirus was a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) until 30 January, and only characterised it as a global pandemic more than a month later, on 11 March. The UK was taking action and working to improve its preparedness from early January.

Claim - ‘This was despite the publication that day of an alarming study by Chinese doctors in the medical journal The Lancet. It assessed the lethal potential of the virus, for the first time suggesting it was comparable to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, which killed up to 50 million people.'

Response - The editor of the Lancet, on exactly the same day – 23 January - called for “caution” and accused the media of ‘escalating anxiety by talking of a ‘killer virus’ and ‘growing fears’. He wrote: ‘In truth, from what we currently know, 2019-nCoV has moderate transmissibility and relatively low pathogenicity. There is no reason to foster panic with exaggerated language.’ The Sunday Times is suggesting that there was a scientific consensus around the fact that this was going to be a pandemic – that is plainly untrue.

https://twitter.com/richardhorton1/stat ... 72128?s=19

Claim - It was unusual for the Prime Minister to be absent from COBR and is normally chaired by the Prime Minister.

Response - This is wrong. It is entirely normal and proper for COBR to be chaired by the relevant Secretary of State. Then Health Secretary Alan Johnson chaired COBR in 2009 during H1N1. Michael Gove chaired COBR as part of No Deal planning. Transport Secretary Grant Shapps chaired COBR during the collapse of Thomas Cook. Mr Hancock was in constant communication with the PM throughout this period.

At this point the World Health Organisation had not declared COVID19 a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’, and only did so only 30 January. Indeed, they chose not to declare a PHEIC the day after the COBR meeting.

Examples of scientific commentary from the time:

Prof Martin Hibberd, Professor of Emerging Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said:

“This announcement is not surprising as more evidence may be needed to make the case of announcing a PHEIC. WHO were criticised after announcing the pandemic strain of novel H1N1_2009, when the virus was eventually realised to have similar characteristics to seasonal influenza and is perhaps trying to avoid making the same mistake here with this novel coronavirus. To estimate the true severity of this new disease requires identifying mild or asymptomatic cases, if there are any, while determining the human to human transmission rate might require more evidence.”

Dr Adam Kamradt-Scott, Senior Lecturer in International Security Studies, University of Sydney, said: “Based on the information we have to date, the WHO Director-General’s decision to not declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern is not especially surprising. While we have seen international spread of the virus, which is one of the criteria for declaring a PHEIC, the cases in those countries do not appear to have seeded further local outbreaks. If that was to start to occur, it would constitute a greater concern but at the moment the outbreak is largely contained within China.”

Claim - 'Imperial’s Ferguson was already working on his own estimate — putting infectivity at 2.6 and possibly as high as 3.5 — which he sent to ministers and officials in a report on the day of the Cobra meeting on January 24. The Spanish flu had an estimated infectivity rate of between 2.0 and 3.0, so Ferguson’s finding was shocking.’

Response - Infectivity on its own simply reveals how quickly a disease spreads, and not its health impact. For that, it is necessary to know about data such as associated mortality/morbidity. It is sloppy and unscientific to use this number alone to compare to Spanish flu.

Claim - No10 ‘played down the looming threat’ from Coronavirus and displayed an ‘almost nonchalant attitude…for more than a month.’

Response - The suggestion that the government’s attitude was nonchalant is wrong. Extensive and detailed work was going on in government because of Coronavirus, as shown above.

Claim - By the time the Prime Minister chaired a COBR meeting on March 2 ‘the virus had sneaked into our airports, our trains, our workplaces and our homes. Britain was on course for one of the worst infections of the most insidious virus to have hit the world in a century.'

Response - This virus has hit countries across the world. It is ridiculous to suggest that coronavirus only reached the UK because the Health Secretary and not the PM chaired a COBR meeting.

Claim - 'Failure of leadership' by anonymous senior advisor to Downing Street.

Response - The Prime Minister has been at the helm of the Government response to Covid 19, providing the leadership to steer his Ministerial team through a hugely challenging period for the whole nation. This anonymous source is variously described as a ‘senior adviser to Downing Street’ and a ‘senior Downing Street adviser’. The two things are not the same. One suggests an adviser employed by the government in No10. The other someone who provides ad hoc advice. Which is it?

Claim - The government sent 279,000 items of its depleted stockpile of protective equipment to China during this period in response to a request for help from the authorities there.

Response - The equipment was not from the pandemic stockpile. We provided this equipment to China at the height of their need and China has since reciprocated our donation many times over. Between April 2-April 15 we have received over 12 million pieces of PPE in the UK from China.

Claim - Little was done to equip the National Health Service for the coming crisis in this period.

Response - This is wrong. The NHS has responded well to Coronavirus, and has provided treatment to everyone in critical need. We have constructed the new Nightingale hospitals and extended intensive care capacity in other hospitals.

Claim - Among the key points likely to be explored are why it took so long to recognise an urgent need for a massive boost in supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health workers; ventilators to treat acute respiratory symptoms; and tests to detect the infection.

Response - The Department for Health began work on boosting PPE stocks in January, before the first confirmed UK case.

Discussions on PPE supply for COVID-19 began w/c 27 January (as part of Medical Devices and Clinical Consumables), with the first supply chain kick-off meeting on 31 January. The first additional orders of PPE was placed on 30 January via NHS Supply Chain’s ‘just-in-time contracts’. BAU orders of PPE were ramped up around the same date.
Friday, 7 February, the department held a webinar for suppliers trading from or via China and the European Union. Over 700 delegates joined and heard the Department’s requests to carry out full supply chain risk assessments and hold onto EU exit stockpiles where they had been retained.
Monday, 10 February, the department spoke with the major patient groups and charities to update them on the situation regarding the outbreak and to update them on the steps it was taking to protect supplies.
Tuesday, 11 February, the department wrote to all suppliers in scope of the Covid 19 supply response work – those trading from or via China or the EU – repeating the messages from the webinar and updating suppliers on the current situation relating to novel coronavirus.
The NHS has spare ventilator capacity and we are investing in further capacity.
Claim - Suggestion that ‘lack of grip’ had the knock-on effect of the national lockdown being introduced days or even weeks too late, causing many thousands more unnecessary deaths.

Response - The government started to act as soon as it was alerted to a potential outbreak. Mr Hancock was first alerted to Covid 19 on 3 January and spoke to Departmental officials on 6th Jan before receiving written advice from the UK Health Security Team. He brought the issue to the attention of the Prime Minister and they discussed Covid 19 on 7 January.

The government’s scientific advisory groups started to meet in mid-January and Hancock instituted daily meetings to grip the emerging threat. We have taken the right steps at the right time guided by the scientific evidence.

Claim - Scientists said the threat from the coming storm was clear and one of the government’s key advisory committees was given a dire warning a month earlier than has previously been admitted about the prospect of having to deal with mass casualties.

Response - The government followed scientific advice at all times. The WHO only determined that COVID 19 would be a global pandemic on 11 March. Claiming that there was scientific consensus on this is just wrong. Sage met on January 22 but the first NERVTAG meeting was held on 13 January (NERVTAG is the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group – see here https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/ne ... sory-group ).

Claim - The last rehearsal for a pandemic was a 2016 exercise codenamed Cygnus, which predicted the health service would collapse and highlighted a long list of shortcomings — including, presciently, a lack of PPE and intensive care ventilators.

Response - The Government has been extremely proactive in implementing lessons learnt around pandemic preparedness, including from Exercise Cygnus. This includes being ready with legislative proposals that could rapidly be tailored to what became the Coronavirus Act, plans to strengthen excess death planning, planning for recruitment and deployment of retired staff and volunteers, and guidance for stakeholders and sectors across government.

Claim - By February 21 the virus had already infected 76,000 people, had caused 2,300 deaths in China and was taking a foothold in Europe, with Italy recording 51 cases and two deaths the following day. Nonetheless NERVTAG, one of the key government advisory committees, decided to keep the threat level at “moderate”.

Response - This is a misrepresentation of what the threat level is. This is about the current public health danger – and on February 21, when the UK had about a dozen confirmed cases, out of a population of over 66 million, the actual threat to individuals was moderate. In terms of the potential threat, the government was clear – on 10 February the Secretary of State declared that “the incidence or transmission of novel Coronavirus constituted a serious and imminent threat to public health”.

This blog has been

I read it to the end. It's on the lines of "We aren't really as bad as the article says."

I was watching French TV this evening thanks to Mme Poolier. The PM, the Health Minister, and a medical expert leading a vaccine research group all spoke to the nation.
They put across their message very clearly and in almost overwhelming detail on both the pandemic battle and the economic consequence fronts.
Tomorrow night, as as already happened many times since quarantine started, there will be a live televised Q&A with public phone-ins, with the PM himself answering. If it goes as usual he will not duck a single question. He won't pretend the government has been good in any particular area if it hasn't. I honestly can't see how they could be more transparent.
I think some of that would go down really well in Britain.

I agree with Monty but it is worth bearing in mind that Macron was polling incredibly badly before the virus hit. The option of hiding and hoping no blame stuck to him wasn't really viable so he's gambled on being a humble, straight talking, open leader rather than the arrogant elitist tosser that most people who originally voted him in were sick of.

He's done it very well and it has probably saved his political skin. The contrast with the stalling and evasion that you see in the UK's press conferences couldn't be starker but I suppose the hiding and hoping option was an attractive one to a PM hat had just won an election and was still polling well.

Maybe we can now stop searching every corner and grasping at every straw to bash OUR government with.
In fact isn't it about time to give credit where it's due.
The team, as I often call them, are totally focussed on defeating this disease whilst people on here who, let's face it haven't a clue what they are talking about, have thrown everything apart from the kitchen sink at them.
I've no doubt that the usual suspects will pour scorn on the government's response to the deliberate anti government vitriol engineered by the times.
I hope those suspects are thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
I don't want any apologies for the incessant "ganging up" on me or any other people who had the audacity to question their behaviour.
Sleep tight tonight, comrades, with the word tolerance deeply engraved within your thoughts and maybe, just maybe, you'll awake with an enriched vigour to finally accept that you lost the election and let the dedicated team have a bit of slack.

That's not gin, it has to be crack.

Yes, he admitted they'd got off to a bad start and apologised. And it wasn't "I'm sorry if you think we're shite".

It's long and it's in French but you only have to skip through it to get the gist. The PM comes in at about 16:20.

This is how you tell the nation what's happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq73pXoTvsE

I stopped reading the original post in this thread when the official response claimed they were doin everything possible to support the NHS.

They even lie in official responses

I was wondering what you were on. Thanks for letting me know.

And they already have their defence sorted. It was the scientific advice that done it guv.

We can break this down step by step if you like.

Newspaper quoted a meeting as taking place on the 3rd Friday of January, when in actual fact the meeting took place on the 4th Friday.
Verdict the newspaper doesn't know what week it is, never mind what day.
Supplementary verdict. Sloppy journalism by not checking when the meeting took place...............Category of news...........fake.

Derwent you should paint yourself orange.

At the end of the day the accusation from the article is that UK didn’t take the steps required early enough to limit the impact of the virus.

They didn’t we are heading for the worst death rate in Europe, our neighbours who did take those steps have over halved the impact in terms of deaths.

Countries were locking down and closing borders before our Prime Minister had even attended a cobra meeting they can argue minor points all they wish but the Prime minister appeared on live TV cracking jokes about Covid-19 and talking up herd immunity. People would have more respect if they acknowledged these serious and deadly failings. Iain Duncan Smith was on Sky before this official party line response came out earlier in the day questioning who in the party was ‘leaking information’ not saying the article was in any way false.

Vietnam has a population of 96 million but no reported coronavirus deaths.

How have some countries avoided large numbers of deaths ?

They followed WHO advice.

Act quickly , suspend flights from COVID zones , test , trace , identify , isolate

We have failed miserably on all of those points and now with the fiasco regarding the PPE from China and Turkey , you get the impression its too late to turn this around and the government know it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52346488 Though on current form , if they say 30,000 expect no more than 10,000

Johnson has to step down when this pandemic abates , though my guess is , unofficially he already has.

Marvellous innit. A newspaper can lie all they like and the experts on here start defending criticism of them.
Like I said lies and half truths.
Any credibility the sensible majority ever had, which wasn't much to start with, is now being eroded and the irony is that it is they who will erode it.

On another front I have just taken delivery of my daily supply of gin and guess what.....I am being restricted to a maximum of fifteen bottles per day. What's that all about????
I reckon some of you buggers are stockpiling....stop it !!!!
It's a good job the Whiskey delivery was the usual forty bottles or....................

Stop press..................my crack supplier has only gone and got himself arrested.
Anybody got any spare.

At no stage in the governments response have they accused The Sunday Times of lying. You can’t just make things up to fit your bizarre agenda. You aren’t even twisting it you are making it up. They seem to being trying to pass the buck onto The WHO. How did most other countries know that playing it safe was the best option then?

They have said they got a date wrong for one of meetings the rest is pretty lame attempt to justify the response during those first five weeks. They have not denied Johnson didn’t attend the meetings they have not denied he was having weekends away. His attitude towards Covid-19 during this period is well documented. He talked about herd immunity on live television, he joked about ventilators he boasted about shaking people’s hands in hospitals.

At the end of the day actions speak louder than words

The problem for the government is all the evidence points to clear failings during that period. Inaction has costs thousands of lives in other parts of the World decisive action has preserved lives.

Try and successfully deny that.....

Sorry derwent but can you prove the times lied?

I await your detailed analysis.

We have gone over Johnson's antics ad nauseam, or you have.
I'm addressing the newspaper's lies and half truths, a stance which I took right from the beginning.
The government are more forgiving than me, or more polite than me.
The Times is guilty of being economical with the truth is basically the governments stance.
You can spin it how much you like but the journos are lying.
It's typical shoddy, lazy journalism.
I'm delighted to see that at last someone is saying enough is enough and standing up to their disgraceful behaviour. They have explained the way the meetings are chaired but you don't seem to be able to grasp that. After what you've called boris over the years I'm surprised you aren't actually glad he wasn't at the meetings. You claim to be only interested in protecting lives and yet want a man who you consider to be an incompetent liar to lead the fight. I don't think you know what you are saying half the time, such is the hate that is consuming you.
You don't like it when the boot is on the other foot do you.
Keep going though, you're doing a great job of proving my point that you'e only interested in bashing the government, political point scoring and defending anyone who suits that purpose.
You're siding with liars now.
You've called the government liars often enough.
Oh wait, you're not actually saying that newspapers tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth are you?
Bless.

One flew over the cuckoo's nest.

All them words and not a single specific example or point addressed.

What’s the point? What are you achieving apart from filling some time typing. Hate consuming me!? you are absolutely mental. Off your rocker.

Do you think this crew are still winding them up mr derwent?


https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 73521.html

Yesterday we were told to be cautious about the Sunday Times expose, being it coming from journalists who are not always particularly reliable.

Yet when the government issues a response we are to take it as gospel, despite them being famously dishonest, especially this current lot who have more form than probably any other administration in British history for lying.

If you start blindly believing the government, regardless of the facts, over any journalists trying to hold them to account I'm afraid you're on a dark road. Sadly we've been on that road for a number of years already, hence we are where we are.

I laughed out loud about four times during Derwent’s absurd, irrelevant rambling diatribe so at least I got something out of it. Enough now though no more time is to be wasted on him.

I don’t hate anyone I’m not that type of person by the way. I do care about the safety of my friends and family though.

Looking at his virtual 20 year old barmaid with the big tits. Same age as the grand daughter. Draw your own conclusions.

The government have adequately addressed each point in very great detail and I addressed the chairing of meetings part. I've also addressed the lie about which Friday the meeting took place.
So accusing me of not giving any examples is just another lie. You are now lying to protect liars. There is no limit to the lengths you will go to underline your hatred of the government.
Incredible.

I came off it when the government released their reply. I think you probably noticed that .

Getting a date wrong isn’t a lie or an important detail of the story.

Neither is interpreting something differently.

There he goes again. No more time wasted on me. If only that were true.

You need help.

Looking at his virtual 20 year old barmaid with the big tits. Same age as the grand daughter. Draw your own conclusions.[/quote]


A barman with a tight bottom more your thing then ?

I was wondering when the definition of a lie would come up.

I asked for help this morning when my crack dealer got arrested.

I don't fantasise about kids full stop. Appreciate that might be hard for you to get your head round Sussex, but there you go.
Leave that business to the experts on here.

Bless

Derwent. Why are you bothering? The majority on here are pro-Labour and are pre-disposed to dislike Tories. You wont change that. They'll believe whatever backs their beliefs and dismiss the rest. They want to discuss their beliefs amongst like minded thinkers (just like millions of other platforms out there) and will be hostile towards people who try to intrude with opposing beliefs. You need to find a forum that's there for the purpose of wider debate. Folks in here are not interested and that is 100% their fair choice.

Also it's worth bearing in mind that there are forums out there full of pro-government folks who would be equally as unwelcoming of differing views. I have to say, I really enjoyed a good slagging of Corbyn and co with like minded people. I'm not blinkeredly anti Labour though.

It's about dead people, not parties.

Pooly_Imp has only been told that on 300 occasions.

He continues to be massively ignorant to that though which is tedious.

Derwent. Why are you bothering? The majority on here are pro-Labour and are pre-disposed to dislike Tories. You wont change that. They'll believe whatever backs their beliefs and dismiss the rest.

I mean, you have to appreciate the irony here right.

Its delicious.

I'm playing Pooly Imp Bingo and don't have Corbyn on my card. Can I get a refund ?

It's the twilight zone.

Well when someone is so spectacularly inept that they get handed their own backside by BORIS JOHNSON of all people, the impact lasts for a while. We've only just stopped hearing his weasily voice on TV. He's not irrelevant at all just because he's in the past. The lessons learnt from the abject failure of his Labour party should resonate long into the future for the current party.

As for bingo, all I hear is Tories are rubbish, tory voters are rubbish. Over and over.

The irony? So who thinks this government has done anything really well? Didn't think so.

Nobody on here is accusing you of fantasising about kids. 20 year olds are not kids which is why I specifically used a figure over 18. It was a throw away lad joke with no other intention attached. If you and others want to use it as a point scorer, or something more sinister then feel free. It says more about you than the people you call experts on here.
No one on here fantasises about kids so who are these experts that you are leaving it to.
We can fight, scrap, take the piss and eternally disagree on here but no one, that's no one on here deserves to be even remotely connected with child fantasy. You may have worded your post wrong and you can have the benefit of the doubt but I think you ought to make yourself less open to interpretation, especially on such a sensitive subject. Everybody on here, without exception, would willingly strangle a kiddie botherer.

But people are dying.

I think the government's economic response has been pretty good, not perfect but considering the circumstances I can't justify myself criticising it.

It's their response elsewhere that has been severely lacking. And ultimately it's that lacklustre response which will directly correlate with people dying unnecessarily.

Also, not arsed about Labour right now. It's not relevant to the thread. We're discussing the current government, which Labour, thanks to getting "handed their own backside by Boris Johnson" has little to no influence in right now.

If you read my post I said it was politician v journalist which put me on the fence and that I would be amazed if more didn't come out in the afternoon bulletin. As it happened the governments response came out which convinced me that my first hunch was right. I also said that Gove was another reason I was on the fence If you remember there was accusations flying around that Gove was the major player in this and that he had orchestrated the leak.
I will admit that I have never trusted the press for years so that has obviously come across. A long time ago two articles were written in newspapers where it said "and a spokesman said" followed by a complete fabrication. I was the spokesman. I agree that shouldn't have any effect but it does I'm afraid.

The government is formed by members of a political party and they are on everyone's lips, especially the press who are dancing because the government ( the Tory Party] have had the audacity to criticise one of their cronies.
I think we are going to see a lot more reaction to the media interview techniques in future.
harry and megan have named four newspapers that they are now distancing themselves from.

I'm not anti labour at all. I am a member. I am anti the people who took over the labour party and made it unelectable, therefore leaving the door open for boris. Unfortunately their fanaticism prevents them from seeing this.The hard left would rather stay in opposition that moderate their ideals. It would be acceptable to a certain extent but they've not even been an effective opposition.

Christ every thread ends up converging onto the same point that's been made over and over again.

The telltale sign being Derwent telling everyone how he is:
- Not anti-labour
- Actually a labour member
- Hates how the hard-left made Labour unelectable

You've made your point on this matter very clear, and many times over at that.

Now is it within the realms of possibility that a thread could stay reasonably on topic without these ridiculous and irrelevant Labour tangents.