COVID UPSURGE IS DOWN TO THE UNCARING YOUNG.

While the precise numbers may be debatable, it is clear that the COVID-19 epidemic is spreading rapidly again. Diagnosed infections are at the highest level recorded and deaths are creeping up although improved understanding of the condition and its treatment is likely to prevent the latter from reaching the numbers recorded earlier.

Despite the obvious need for serious action and even a return to near lockdown in some areas, an assortment of political figures in the worst affected places seem intent on criticising the government and demanding that they be given the power to decide what is done in their own areas, claiming that they have better knowledge of the epidemic than those at the centre. That this is nonsense seems obvious, but clearly not to those looking to make political capital out of a national crisis. They demand that yet more money is magicked-up by the government to support anyone and everyone, while saying little if anything about the personal responsibility of all those concerned.

The virus is spreading most rapidly in the north-west, north-east and Yorkshire regions of England and it is very clear that the spread is heavily concentrated amongst the 16-29 age group who are then spreading it further to older and more vulnerable people. Whenever it has been suggested that the failure to control and even eliminate the virus is not the fault of the government but of "the people", there have been howls of rage from some quarters but it is now abundantly obvious that some elements of "the people" are, indeed. responsible. 

Seeing television pictures of crowds gathering in town centres, completely ignoring the guidance about wearing masks, social distancing and the numbers who can gather together demonstrates just how selfish and uncaring some of the people are. Hearing of large outbreaks at several universities is a further indicator of the careless attitude of many younger people who no doubt are relying on the known fact that they are unlikely to be badly affected by the virus even if they do catch it. These utterly anti-social and irresponsible individuals need to be named and shamed without fear or favour. Whatever the shortcomings of government policy, it is these stupid and selfish young people who are putting the health of the rest of us in danger, and who are responsible for the social and economic fall out of the epidemic.

Overcoming this epidemic relies on all of the people abiding by the guidance and rules set out by the government. It is time for the young to realise this and to begin to act like the supposedly grown-up, intelligent adults that they claim to be.

COVID-19 NUMBERS ARE UTTERLY UNRELIABLE.

Does anyone really know the extent of the COVID-19 epidemic in this country ?

Yesterday, it was announced that due to "technical issues", a significant number of positive tests had not been included in recently published figures. Inevitably, some have blamed this omission on the government, but surely the blame lies with those directly responsible for compiling the numbers. A simple review of the figures released on a daily basis confirms this.

Day to day, the numbers change. not by much but by enough to make one wonder what is going on. I don't mean the total numbers, but going back to the early days of the epidemic, the numbers of cases and deaths recorded on a daily basis change almost every day; not for every day though some days seem to change more often than others. This latest announcement of thousands of cases being 'missed' over recent days simply convinces me that the bodies responsible, mostly Public Health England, are utterly incompetent. I have lost count of the number of times they have told us that the numbers have been adjusted due to some error or other and one can only wonder how reliable any of the figures really are.

Thankfully I have not contracted the virus and have even had a negative test a couple of weeks ago, so I know the epidemic has not reached me yet. That said, the uncertainty surrounding the published numbers leaves me wholly unsure that I'm not the only uninfected person left in the country.

Public Health England is a useless organisation and it can only be a good thing that it's to be abolished. The worry is that it'll simply be replaced by yet another pointless and useless QUANGO, run by a gaggle of faceless bureaucrats, many of them the same as are in post now. Surely it is now time for a genuine re-organisation of the NHS and associated bodies that will allow for the creation of something that is properly competent, is responsive to patients, is not driven by diktat from 'on high' and not drowned in demands for statistics demonstrating how wonderful it is.

The truth is that it's not bad for those who get into the system but it's bloody awful for those on the waiting list. It almost never admits its mistakes, frequently lies in its published statistics and is horrendously bureaucratic in outlook. Envy of the world ? Don't make me laugh !

ps As an afterthought, it occurs to me that "technical issues" was a possible excuse suggested by Sir Humphrey Appleby when looking for a way to explain a government 'cock up' in an episode of the wonderful 'Yes, Minister' / 'Yes, Prime Minister' series. More than 30 years on - how little has changed.

CUMMINGS AND GOINGS.

As the furore around Dominic Cummings continues apace, I wonder just how many of "the public" actually give a damn, despite the media claims that public opinion is in favour of him being sacked.

Cummings is a man who would be unknown to "the public" were it not for the media's obsession with him. He is a back-room boy who does not appear on public platforms and does not tell "the public" what we should or should not do; while he may well have influence behind the scenes, we have no direct knowledge of what that influence might be, beyond what the Cummings-hating media and left wing politicians, clergymen and others tell us. 

Yet again today the BBC has trotted out a string of Cummings hating opponents of Boris Johnson and his government to repeat the cry "Cummings must go !" over and over again. We are told that hordes of Conservative MPs are also baying for his blood, but no one reminds us that this is as much about a revolt by the anti-Boris lobby in the party as it is about Cummings. However, we are reminded that others who broke the rules were sacked, or resigned, citing the cases of Neil Ferguson and Catherine Calderwood, but without pointing out that these cases were rather different.

Ferguson invited a  woman with whom he was reportedly in a relationship to visit him at home, while Calderwood had twice taken her family to a holiday home, stayed away from home overnight and spent time on a local beach. In neither case was there any reason for the breach of the regulations other than straightforward lack of concern for the rules. Most importantly, both Ferguson and Calderwood had appeared on screen providing advice to the public about the measures needed to contain the coronavirus epidemic and the importance of maintaining the lockdown.

It is clear that Dominic Cummings isn't liked but the reaction to his misdemeanours is surely very excessive. That our media has now spent days talking about little else and that almost every question from its representatives at Sunday's Downing Street press conference centred on this nonsense, says much about its failure to report the news and manic desire to create it. What "the public" need is proper news and proper analysis, not stories whipped up in a media frenzy. 

It's time to move on.

CUMMINGS MANIA GRIPS THE NATION !

Oh My God !

With the country suffering the worst epidemic for 100 years, government borrowing and debt rising at a rate not seen since the Second World War and crucial decisions about Brexit coming up in the next few weeks, the newspapers and media has found a far worse story on which to concentrate.

Did Dominic Cummings break the rules of lockdown ?!

In fact, it's not just the newspapers that are now obsessing with this story, it's also the various radio and television media too, with the jolly old lefties at the BBC leading the way in trying to get their teeth into that horrid man and his friends in government. They've dredged up anyone they can find who will demand that "Cummings must go", even including some former policeman whose opinion was broadcast this morning, entirely unchallenged, on Radio 4. 

We've been treated to the journalist mainly responsible for the original story, Pippa Crerar of that well known Tory (ha, ha !) newspaper the Mirror, who - Shock, Horror ! - stood by her story and demanded "Cummings must go", again unchallenged on the Andrew Marr programme. Even Marr's quick flick through of the day's newspaper headlines contained inflections which clearly indicated his own views on the matter, while his sneery attitude towards the government's comments on 'campaigning newspapers' seemed to ignore that the fact that newspapers are meant to report the news, not make it. 

Did Cummings break the rules ? I don't know and, frankly, I don't really care. There are far more important things to worry about at the moment and for the media to be treating what is a very minor story as if it is an earth shattering scandal is ludicrous. This is a media which places more importance on its ability to claim the heads of  as many political figures as it can, than on actually reporting serious news. It's the same BBC that reacted so egregiously over allegations levelled against Cliff Richard and others, assuming that the allegations were true rather than simply the unsupported ravings of fanatics and lunatics. 

The furore about Dominic Cummings is a diversion from real news and should be resisted by the government. Whether it will be or not, will be an indicator of the true strength of Boris Johnson and his government.

FORGET MEDIA NEGATIVITY - COVID-19 IS BEING BEATEN.

It's been reported that an opinion poll has suggested that ore people are now dissatisfied with the government's handling of the coronavirus epidemic than are satisfied, the first time this has occurred. It's also reported that the dissatisfaction is most deeply rooted in those under the age of 50, while older people have no such concerns. 

The reporting of these findings was met with a degree of fanfare on Sky News yesterday but, in reality, is it such a surprise ? Firstly, at a time when the number of tests being carried out is rising substantially, the number of new cases and the number of deaths are falling significantly and there has been a degree of easing of the lockdown, the bulk of our media continues to try to find fault and bad news wherever it can. Fed a diet of stories about government failings, most of them irrelevant or mythical, is it any surprise that the most gullible in our society, the young, are lapping it up, while older, more seasoned and rational people treat such stories as nothing but the usual bleatings of journalists desperate to be noticed ?

Of course the government has made mistakes but why does the media refuse to recognize the progress it has also made ? The lockdown is working, despite, it seems, many younger people disliking and increasingly ignoring it; the media really ought to be criticising these ignorant fools and emphasising the need to continue to follow government guidelines, rather than looking for every opportunity to pick holes in the government's approach.

While the government seeks to deal with the epidemic in the best ways possible, the media and others looking for political advantage - Keir Starmer and Sadiq Khan among many others - add nothing of value to the debate, making no constructive proposals and just nit-picking. They find it so much easier and more profitable to sit on the side lines and take pot-shots than to offer support or to report all the news, with equal emphasis and prominence. It's akin to the usual media habit of making the original story front page news and the retraction and apology three lines on page 18.

Forget the rubbish being headlined everywhere, I can see real light at the end of the tunnel. For what it's worth, I see real progress and very significant changes over the next 4 to 6 weeks, so much so that life may look very much better in July than it does today.

MEDIA, TRUTH AND POLITICS

Our wonderful media seems to have no interest in truth, only an interest in looking for ways it can criticise and undermine the government in the midst of the current coronavirus crisis. At the forefront of this assault are the BBC (what a surprise) and the other televisual broadcasters, although I've generally found Sky to be a little less biased than others. Indeed, Sky's political editor, Beth Rigby, has risen very much in my estimation by her very measured and reasoned commentary on events.

Rather than look for positives in the daily figures and from the daily news conferences, most have only looked for points to take issue with. Rather than be constructive, they've looked for news stories, which means finding everyone with a complaint and then making a stories out of thir situations. Positive stories are of no benefit unless they can be turned to reflect good on the NHS, ignoring that the NHS is an arm of government.

I truly believe, having spoken at length with a number of friends and family in differnt parts of the country, that the picture as painted by the media bares almost no relation to the reality of life as being experienced by the vast majority of the population. Most people, of all ages, are probably frustrated but accept the need for restrictions on their activities; while the media emphasises the moans of a few, the vast majority just get on with it. The media does us no favours by its continual sniping at authority, disguised as journalistic freedom and in all manner of other nonsensical ways.

It is highly selective and even destructive. The media should be objective, not subjectively biased against one political viewpoint, which it mostly is. The message being given to those who accept the vitriol that spews from the mostly left orientated press is entirely political in nature; it's anti-government. It is undemocratic and unhealthy to our nation. This is unacceptable.

What is needed is to put aside poitical dogma, interests, ambitions and all the rest. We are in the midst of a national crisis and, right or wrong, the government needs to be supported. The time for arguments about strategy, ppe and all the rest of the rubbish, are for later. We are where we are, and that is where we'd have been regardless of who had been in power over the last 80 years, let alone the last 6 months; politics has nothing to do with it. Maybe the current government has made mistakes, maybe not, but they are the ones who've been handed a once in a century problem to solve. What matters is the end result, not the bumps along the road. 

For me, which do I trust more, the apparently bumbling but transparent Boris, or the oily charm of Starmer ? One is real and one is a clone of all other recent political aspirants. I know which one I prefer to lead us in crisis, or at any other time, come to think of it.

NOT A TIME FOR POLITICS.

Whatever they may say, there are some political figures who are desperate to turn COVID-19 into a tool for gaining future advantage. Protestations of support for the government are difficult to reconcile with a stream of claims that they aren't doing enough to support every disparate group, have got their strategy wrong, aren't doing enough testing, aren't accountable enough; basically that that they have got everything wrong.

There is no doubt that COVID-19 is dangerous, at least to some, but we have no idea how many may have been infected but shown no symptoms - results from one German village suggest that infection may be far wider than previously thought and serious consequences far less. Might this be the case world-wide or is it just an anomaly ? Are the world-wide panic measures really justified or are they not ?

There is a very important separation to be drawn between dying of COVID-19 and dying with COVID-19, although this distinction seems to be horribly lacking in any of the official reports. Dying of" the virus indicates that it was the primary cause of death; there were no other conditions which the virus did no more than mildly complicate or exacerbate. "Dying with" the virus means that the deceased had been diagnosed as having been infected with the virus but could well have died from other causes that had no connection at all with the virus. It has been suggested, according to a report in the Daily Telegraph a week or so ago, that most of the deaths so far attributed to the virus fall into this latter category. If so, how dangerous is the virus on its own to the rest of the population ?

To answer this question, and others, we can only rely on the knowledge and experience of the experts whose advice is being relied upon by our government. These experts may or may not be correct in their analyses of the situation but it is an unprecedented time and they have little in the way of passed history to use as a guide. Equally, our politicians will do what they think is for the best, guided by the best advice they can find. In the end, there will be no one to blame, only those to praise for helping us all to survive through an unprecedented time of national crisis. Doctors and nurses, carers, delivery drivers and shop workers, all of the other 'essential' workers and even those in government and advising government.

This is not a matter of politics, it's a matter of survival.

COVID-19 : HOW SERIOUS IS IT ?

It seems I may well have been wrong about the new coronavirus, COVID-19, although what the published numbers for infections and deaths actually mean is very unclear.

There's no doubt that the virus is highly infectious but the real number of those infected both in the UK and elsewhere is unknown. While numbers of those diagnosed are being published daily, it's important to recognize that many people may have had mild symptoms which they've assumed to be no more than a normal cough or cold; if they haven't been tested for the COVID -19 virus, they won't be in the numbers. It is also the case that the people most likely to have been tested are those who are most at risk - those who are elderly, have other serious underlying health issues and have been admitted to hospital for reasons which may not have been due to the viral infection but, when tested, were discovered to be positive for it.

The clear implication is that the true number of those infected is probably much higher than the published number and that the current statistics are almost certainly misleading, being biased towards those who have experienced more severe symptoms. However, it's also clear that the vast majority of those who become infected will experience symptoms which are annoying and unpleasant rather than dangerous, with even the published numbers indicating that at least 80% of people will suffer only mild symptoms and that the mortality rate, currently around 2-3% in the UK, will eventually turn out to be much lower. Again, the numbers are almost certainly misleading.

In the UK, well over 25,000 people have been tested and 460 have been found to have the infection, 8 of whom have died, meaning that some 98% of those tested did NOT have the virus but had normal symptoms of a cough or cold. The 8 who have been recorded as dying were all in their later years and all had what are described as serious underlying health conditions; did they really die from the effects of COVID-19 or were their deaths simply hastened by it ? In other words, are the numbers of deaths attributed to the virus not being overstated ? The current mortality rate of around 2%, higher in other countries but with the same proviso, is almost certainly a gross over-estimate.

None of this is intended to minimise the severity of the COVID-19 epidemic or to minimise its impact around the world, but it is necessary to consider what the published numbers really indicate.The virus is a new one and many people will become infected, either in the next few weeks and months or, perhaps, in future years. The real impact will be felt in the short term as thousands, even millions, may become ill for a week or 2 and need time away from work or other duties and responsibilities which will cause serious difficulties socially and economically. However, almost all of these people will recover and then be immune to further infection. 

The government is doing what it can to mitigate the economic effects and is trying to ensure that the NHS can cope with the expected deluge of more seriously ill patients. It is attempting to manage the spread of the virus although how successful this will be is anyone's guess. The bottom line is that we are facing at least a few months of disruption to normal life, disruption which may well result in long term effects to our economy but, ultimately, will impact very little on the general well-being of the vast majority of the population.