13/10/2020
The current hospitalisation numbers for COVID-19 show that we have more patients in beds now, than we did ahead of the initial lockdown. But, was that inevitable? Or is it a direct result of the Prime Minister and his government ignoring the advice of the medical experts?
The latest Office for National Statistics figures recorded that 343 coronavirus deaths occurred in the week to 2 October; and that this number has been doubling every fortnight over the last month.
Documents released by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) revealed that they had recommended significant action about three weeks ago. It warned that, "The re-imposition of a package of measures is required urgently," on 21 September. It further stated, "The more rapidly these interventions are put in place the greater the reduction in Covid-related deaths and the quicker they can be eased.
"Not acting now to reduce cases will result in a very large epidemic with catastrophic consequences."
Sage said government should consider the policies, listed below, immediately:
a circuit-breaker to temporarily lockdown the country and drive down cases;
advice to work from home for all those that can;
ban all contact within the home with members of other households, except support bubbles;
close all bars, restaurants, cafes, indoor gyms, and "personal services" such as hairdressers; and
move all non-essential university and college teaching online.
If the government had adopted these measures, it seems highly likely that the numbers of infections, hospitalisations and deaths would have been significantly lower than we have at the moment, or can expect in the coming weeks and, maybe even, months ahead.
It seems to me that the government should be facing challenging questions as to why they failed to implement the recommendations. Each and every life lost over this period is a life that might have been saved had they accepted the recommendations of Sage. That is not to say that we would have had no infections, hospitalisations or deaths; but that these would clearly have been lower and it is impossible to definitely identify which individuals would have been saved from the experience.
With regard to those who have suffered infections as a result of the failure to adopt the recommendations of SAGE, the government should be required to monitor their ongoing health and to compensate all those who suffer 'long COVID' complications.
If the ineptitude of this government leads to people suffering long-term health issues and, as a result, financial hardship, they must be held to account and must make reparation to those individuals.
If the government contend that they had just cause for not implementing the recommendations made by SAGE, they should be required to publish the full details of the analysis and the rationale for their decisions.
Prof Calum Semple, who was at the Sage meeting on 21 September, has said that the three-tier system announced by the government on Monday 12th October had come too late; stressing the likelihood that a short national lockdown might be needed within weeks.
Sage is also damning of the government's 'world-beating' Test and Trace system. They have stated that, "this system is having a marginal impact on transmission" and that unless its resources grow faster than the epidemic then Test and Trace "will further decline in the future".
The documents say a two-week circuit break in October could drive cases down, essentially rewinding the clock by 28 days. This would hopefully enable the Test and Trace system to catch up.
The Sage papers stated that the widely supported decision to keep schools open would require a "wide range of other measures" to be implemented.
It is worrying that the government seems to have been dismissive of the experts; worse that they are just using them to create a pretence of relying on experts.
Comments