COVID 19 GLOBAL

[KWA]

1 hour ago, fygjam said:

In answer to another question Kelly made the "1%, do the math" quote.

So he gave the 1% figure you mention, combined it with information from Merkel and said work the totals out yourself.  If you personally did the required maths would you get 150,000, or has the press got their sums wrong?

I see it as 1% of 60% of 25,000,000 population = 150,000 potential deaths in his worst case.  Whether it's dramatised to boost newspaper sales or not (of course it is), the figures are still there and were given by a key advisor to the government in one of the daily briefings.

[fygjam]

24 minutes ago, KWA said:

So he gave the 1% figure you mention, combined it with information from Merkel and said work the totals out yourself.  If you personally did the required maths would you get 150,000, or has the press got their sums wrong?

I see it as 1% of 60% of 25,000,000 population = 150,000 potential deaths in his worst case.  Whether it's dramatised to boost newspaper sales or not (of course it is), the figures are still there and were given by a key advisor to the government in one of the daily briefings.

 

And where is the evidence that this was the number used by "the authorities" as claimed.

Where is the evidence that this number was the "stock answer" as claimed.

Where is the evidence that this was "the magic number" that all decisions were made on as claimed.

Give us the evidence.

BTW. Kelly DID NOT say he agreed with Merkel's assessment. The 60% is irrelevant.

And to reiterate, Kelly DID say " I'm not going to speculate on the actual numbers." A key advisor was NOT going to speculate.

You keep digging, I'll just hand out the shovels.

 

21 hours ago, roobob said:

IExample....Australians were told there would be 150,000 deaths from CV19 straight up .... even before the authorities had a full handle on the virus... and when questioned  why some things were being put in place...the stock answer was.. we will have 150,000deaths from it....... not "maybe".... but ..."will".  To date, Australia has had 122 deaths

All decisions were made on that "magic" number... even when it became evident that the virus would not hit as hard as they predicted.... they held forth and did not adapt to the situation at hand.

 

[Washedup]

1 hour ago, galenkia said:

Rather than mass lockdowns like before I think governments will only target areas where it's increasing, too much devastation to the country otherwise. Gonna kill too many businesses. 

Hope so, Catalonia looking a bit messy..Better Hold fast 

[Krapow]

Good news on the 'Oxford' Vaccine. 

So far so good ...

Edit - Though won't be getting my hopes up until i see what the utube and facebook experts have to say. 

Edited July 20, 2020 by Krapow

[dcfc2007]

17 hours ago, Stillearly said:

Five months into this and you still don't have a fucking clue .... 

Facts are on my side...

 

'Age is the single most important factor predicting when coronavirus kills. Older people are more likely to die in general, and that effect is stronger with coronavirus: out of every 100 people who die, 88 are over 65.'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2020/jun/11/who-does-coronavirus-kill-in-england-and-wales-visualising-the-data

 

Only two out of every 100 people who die of coronavirus are under 50

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2020/jun/11/who-does-coronavirus-kill-in-england-and-wales-visualising-the-data

 

But it is noticeable how all these estimates for IFR are markedly lower than the figures thrown about a couple of months ago, when it was widely asserted that Covid-19 was a whole magnitude worse than flu. Seasonal influenza is often quoted as having an IFR of 0.1 to 0.2 per cent. The Stanford study suggests that Covid-19 might not, after all, be more deadly than flu – although, as Ioannidis notes, the profile is very different: seasonal flu has a higher IFR in developing countries, where vaccination is rare, while Covid-19 has a higher death rate in the developed world, thanks in part of more elderly population.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/stanford-study-suggests-coronavirus-might-not-be-as-deadly-as-flu

 

So care to point out where I am full of shit? All the evidence proves that the virus is really only a threat to the elderly, and those with severe underlying illnesses.

80% of Covid19 cases are asymptommatic, it's hardly ebola.  Facts don't care about your feelings sugartits.

 

[dcfc2007]

27 minutes ago, Krapow said:

Good news on the 'Oxford' Vaccine. 

So far so good ...

Edit - Though won't be getting my hopes up until i see what the utube and facebook experts have to say. 

Aye because the scientists have been proven right so often on coronavirus...

My god, the levels of delusion...

 

🤣🤣

[dcfc2007]

11 hours ago, roobob said:

So they delayed things like cancer treatment because the patient could be at risk of dying if they got the virus..... but on the other hand if the patient does not get the cancer treatment they are at a bigger risk of dying. Treatment should not have been stopped...or at the minimum... let the patient decide if they want to continue the treatment with the risk of catching the virus. 

Another reason authorities stopped treatment was under the pretence that countries health systems would collapse with the CV19 virus..... I know Australia's health system did not collapse....did the  NHS collapse???  I am sure I have read on here that some local medical facilities were closed by the Govt because of the virus.... even in regional centres where there were no infections. If this virus was the doomsday that authorities made it out to be... would you not think that they would not want every trained medical personal on duty..facilities open so the public had immediate access to their countries health system.

I agree that the number if deaths for CV19 is high.... but the number of deaths from other unrelated health issues due to having no access to medical treatment is climbing and will continue to climb due to the decisions made by authorities.

CV19 is a virus.... yes a bad virus and it should be treated as best we can until a vaccine is found.... but that is no reason to put all other medical issues ..... many that will cause fatalities.... on hold and withhold vital medical treatment to those people. 

cheers

Great post, won't go down well with the lefties and sofa screamers, too much hard facts. 

[dcfc2007]

6 hours ago, galenkia said:

It was always better to overestimate in preparation than underestimate. 

Watched a documentary that filmed a Covid-19 ICU in a London hospital. There were ambulances queuing up to bring patients in.

Where are the documentaries on the empty nightingale hospitals that never saw a single Covid patient, or the nurses and doctors who became social media superstars because they were able to choreograph bile inducing dance routines in between being worked to death. No I don't think they will be on the beeb or channel 4 anytime soon. Coronavirus warranted a national public health response, not a pandemic and a crushing economic lockdown, when the data become clear that Covid wasn't as deadly as first thought, that's when they should have rectified their mistakes. 

[nampla69]

11 minutes ago, dcfc2007 said:

Where are the documentaries on the empty nightingale hospitals that never saw a single Covid patient, or the nurses and doctors who became social media superstars because they were able to choreograph bile inducing dance routines in between being worked to death. No I don't think they will be on the beeb or channel 4 anytime soon. Coronavirus warranted a national public health response, not a pandemic and a crushing economic lockdown, when the data become clear that Covid wasn't as deadly as first thought, that's when they should have rectified their mistakes. 

Good post. I loathed those social media dance routines intensely and know a Nightingale senior nurse who basically almost never treated a Covid patient but was on standby.

Strange days back in March / April ...... as for how deadly it is jury is still out. 

[fygjam]

44 minutes ago, Krapow said:

Good news on the 'Oxford' Vaccine. 

So far so good ...

Edit - Though won't be getting my hopes up until i see what the utube and facebook experts have to say. 

Well when the experts report check the age groups included in the phase III trials.

According to the boards experts only those over 65 get sick. All people under 65 should be down the pub, at the beach or even possibly at work. If the study groups don't include all ages then the results may not be reliable.

My understanding is that in the US the FDA will only license a vaccine for the age groups included in the trials. If there are no over 65s in the trial it won't be licensed for over 65s. To be used, a doctor will have to go off label. Other countries may have different rules.

 

[dcfc2007]

6 minutes ago, nampla69 said:

Good post. I loathed those social media dance routines intensely and know a Nightingale senior nurse who basically almost never treated a Covid patient but was on standby.

Strange days back in March / April ...... as for how deadly it is jury is still out. 

Yes the jury is still out, one thing is certain though, the fatality rate is definitely not the 5-7% the WHO were claiming it was. More and more data now suggesting that the IFR of Covid is somewhere between 0.1% and 0.5%, that's in the general population, it is even lower in the under 65's. Now we have more effective therapeutic treatments that IFR will only go down, probably closer to the IFR of the seasonal flu, how then can anyone justify the continuation of draconian lockdown measures. It is evident now though that support for/against the imposition of lockdowns and social distancing measures can be divided down ideological lines. The left wing, liberal, remainiac types favour lockdowns and draconian measures such as the mandatory wearing of face masks, the centre ground, right wing and classical liberals want to open the economy, get people back to work, protect businesses and the young from future economic hardship.

 

Across 32 different locations, the median infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.24%). Most studies were done in pandemic epicenters with high death tolls. Median corrected IFR was 0.10% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rate less than the global average (<73 deaths per million as of July 12, 2020), 0.27% in locations with 73-500 COVID-19 deaths per million, and 0.90% in locations exceeding 500 COVID-19 deaths per million. Among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.57% with median of 0.05% across the different locations (corrected median of 0.04%).

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v3

 

[KWA]

6 hours ago, fygjam said:

Give us the evidence.

BTW. Kelly DID NOT say he agreed with Merkel's assessment. The 60% is irrelevant.

You've read the transcript and he brought up Merkel's name in response to a suggested number of 60% and your right, he did not say he agreed with it, but he pointedly also didn't disagree with it.  Your negative innuendo is as bad as the press trying to dramatise things to suit themselves and boost sales.  He used the figures in a press conference being broadcast to the country, on behalf of the government, which was wrong.  By a large amount.

The stuff you bolded about "the authorities" the "stock answer" and "the magic number" were not written by me so please don't quote them against my points.

I don't know or care what your agenda is here, but Australia screwed up the potential figures just like many other countries did, including my own.  I'm unclear as to why you would blindly deny it when it's out there for everyone to see.  Google search may be your forte but logic certainly isn't.

[lazarus]

Back off & stay safe. 🐉🐉🐉

[Krapow]

1 hour ago, dcfc2007 said:

Aye because the scientists have been proven right so often on coronavirus...

My god, the levels of delusion...

 

🤣🤣

Edit - f**k it, can't be bothered, thread's the usual car crash.

Leave youse to it, Enough!

Edited July 20, 2020 by Krapow

[fforest]

[lazarus]

[galenkia]

1 hour ago, dcfc2007 said:

Where are the documentaries on the empty nightingale hospitals that never saw a single Covid patient, or the nurses and doctors who became social media superstars because they were able to choreograph bile inducing dance routines in between being worked to death. No I don't think they will be on the beeb or channel 4 anytime soon. Coronavirus warranted a national public health response, not a pandemic and a crushing economic lockdown, when the data become clear that Covid wasn't as deadly as first thought, that's when they should have rectified their mistakes. 

Yes, mistakes were made, but no one knew what this virus would do. 

You can only learn from this. 

[dcfc2007]

So now PHE have changed how they count covid deaths we see the lowest reported toll in months. Funny that. 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2020 by dcfc2007

[dcfc2007]

Health Minister Matt Hancock on Friday ordered a review into the PHE's reporting after the academics said patients who tested positive for coronavirus, but were successfully treated, would still be counted as dying from the virus "even if they had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN24J0GC

'trust scientists'. 

😂😂😂

[Butch]

2 hours ago, dcfc2007 said:

Where are the documentaries on the empty nightingale hospitals that never saw a single Covid patient, or the nurses and doctors who became social media superstars because they were able to choreograph bile inducing dance routines in between being worked to death. No I don't think they will be on the beeb or channel 4 anytime soon. Coronavirus warranted a national public health response, not a pandemic and a crushing economic lockdown, when the data become clear that Covid wasn't as deadly as first thought, that's when they should have rectified their mistakes. 

The Govt and Public health England worked on the information they had at the time. People seem to forget the utter clusterfuck that was Italy and grabbed all the headlines, plus a lot of the disinformation coming from China, they had to work on an exponentially fatal disease which was transmitted in air, something they had planned for but not on a National scale, as these kind of outbreaks and planning for such a scenario are based upon it being largely localised, not National and Europe wide.

Remember, the NHS puts into place major policies given by PHE, they can't really argue them. the NHS also provide the RAW data which the PHE them correlate and , ahem, do whatever they want with.

A public health response is a measured, pre planned response for different scenarios, such as perhaps a Typhoid or Cholera outbreak, or an outbreak within a certain demographic. That is something which can be managed easily and with pre planned strategies. For example, in areas near to Nuclear Power Stations there are "MAJAC" policies in case of an accident, coupled with a public health response to deal with any (literally speaking) fallout. Each NHS Trust has national guidelines to follow for these events, but when the guidelines are being written and published on a day by day basis, putting them into practice takes time, as was the case with C-19.

The Govt called the shots on Lockdown, not the NHS. The Govt and PHE decided to build the Nightingale Hospitals, it's slightly unfair to bring the doctors and Nurses into this, as many gave their lives and died of C-19 in their line of duty. It's also worth noting that the whole point of lockdown was to stop the NHS becoming overwhelmed, and in response to people dying because they had their treatment postponed, that is not a decision the Hospital makes, it is a decision and guideline given to them by PHE. There was a  policy of DNR on patients with C-19 over the age of 55, such was the expected tidal wave of patients that never came, but they were working with the info they had, and at the time the info coming through, the data and numbers being crunched, infection rates, mortality rates, the mutation of the virus made very sobering reading. The Govt were damned if they did, and damned if they didn't, so erring on the side of caution, they put the lockdown into place. When it was seen to be working, they kept it in place. Arguably for too long, I agree, but there wasn't much I could do about it.

Also, it is about risk management. Bringing people in for operations can expose staff and relatives to more risk of C-19, and could therefore increase the risk to others. It is not (IMO) the right thing to do either, and it needs to be scrutinised as the system has obviously failed and lives have been lost because of it. Also, a lot of cancer patients went without treatment, the reason for this is because cancer wards tend to be single room occupancy wards for the dignity of the patient and families, thus they are the easiest to convert into isolation wards, just close the bloody doors and run infection control. as many patients in cancer wards are at the stage of palliative care, it made somewhat simple yet uncomfortable sense to move them into hospices or private hospitals with smaller capacities and the ability to care for them (private hospitals are usually not equipped to deal with infectious diseases, that's why they were not used as C-19 hospitals).

Things have settled down, and the NHS is in a good position to deal with a second wave, for example, the Wife's Hospital can now get any ward C-19 isolation ready within 5 hours, that's everything from patient transfer through to deep clean and isolation units and ventilators hooked up to the air system and the A/C ventilation in that ward being put onto a separate circuit, PPE distribution and staff rota. Not bad going, so it's not all about Nurses doing the Conga up the corridor.

The problem with Covid was that it came without warning, and by the time it was identified as being so dangerous, it was too late to try and manage on an localised and specific scale. Had China been more open about it, then things would have been different, but they kept their mouths shut until Italy was knee deep in corpses and society was a danger to itself.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to see where mistakes were made. It was a trade off, do nothing and if C-19 was as bad as predicted then we'd all be working as part time gravediggers, but it went the other way. Lockdown worked, there is no doubt of that, C-19 is deadly, have a look at Italy, Brazil or the USA. Did the Govt over react? Possibly, but I'll go with that rather than the alternative.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Butch

[Painter]

47 minutes ago, galenkia said:

Yes, mistakes were made, but no one knew what this virus would do. 

You can only learn from this. 

Yup, and God knows who'd be shouting what if they'd done nothing and things had gone really pearshaped..... although we can have a pretty good guess!

[Butch]

30 minutes ago, Painter said:

Yup, and God knows who'd be shouting what if they'd done nothing and things had gone really pearshaped..... although we can have a pretty good guess!

Exactly right. C-19 was here in the UK, actively infecting before it started to make the headlines. By the time we saw what Italy was going through, it began to emerge Europe wide. Now, normally, a public health response is triggered by a few cases of something, anything from an increase in the number of bee stings through to ebola emerging in a specific area, or maybe an "act" such as, say, a poison Gas cloud, or events giving cause to issues like sunburn during the summer etc. More to the point, the NHS are forewarned and can be prepared. something like an "act" like a gas cloud, or even terrorist act is going to be localised and as such the effect upon local resource can be mitigated easily by sticking someone in an ambulance and sending them elsewhere.

C-19 came out of nowhere with a high infection rate, a high fatality rate as seen in Italy (the only solid information to go on, given that the Chinese were acting like wankers) and the reaction needed to be swift and decisive. Although it wasn't really swift, it was pretty decisive. and as mentioned, the whole point of lockdown was to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed when there was a massive shortage of PPE, which would lead to Medical professionals dropping like flies and then ultimately civil unrest, corpses in the streets and then it's a case of Martial Law.

When people talk about the Nightingale hospitals being empty, that's not actually a bad thing. a few million quid is peanuts compared to the cost of getting caught short without one in place.

Now, one can reasonably argue this has cost a bloody fortune. Lockdown became too draconian and went on for too long. Questions need to be asked, and a learning curve established because this is not going to be the last time the Globe faces an epidemic, and if you think C-19 was bad, then the next one might well make it look like a picnic.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Butch

[dcfc2007]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

The Govt and Public health England worked on the information they had at the time. People seem to forget the utter clusterfuck that was Italy and grabbed all the headlines, plus a lot of the disinformation coming from China, they had to work on an exponentially fatal disease which was transmitted in air, something they had planned for but not on a National scale, as these kind of outbreaks and planning for such a scenario are based upon it being largely localised, not National and Europe wide.

Remember, the NHS puts into place major policies given by PHE, they can't really argue them. the NHS also provide the RAW data which the PHE them correlate and , ahem, do whatever they want with.

A public health response is a measured, pre planned response for different scenarios, such as perhaps a Typhoid or Cholera outbreak, or an outbreak within a certain demographic. That is something which can be managed easily and with pre planned strategies. For example, in areas near to Nuclear Power Stations there are "MAJAC" policies in case of an accident, coupled with a public health response to deal with any (literally speaking) fallout. Each NHS Trust has national guidelines to follow for these events, but when the guidelines are being written and published on a day by day basis, putting them into practice takes time, as was the case with C-19.

The Govt called the shots on Lockdown, not the NHS. The Govt and PHE decided to build the Nightingale Hospitals, it's slightly unfair to bring the doctors and Nurses into this, as many gave their lives and died of C-19 in their line of duty. It's also worth noting that the whole point of lockdown was to stop the NHS becoming overwhelmed, and in response to people dying because they had their treatment postponed, that is not a decision the Hospital makes, it is a decision and guideline given to them by PHE. There was a  policy of DNR on patients with C-19 over the age of 55, such was the expected tidal wave of patients that never came, but they were working with the info they had, and at the time the info coming through, the data and numbers being crunched, infection rates, mortality rates, the mutation of the virus made very sobering reading. The Govt were damned if they did, and damned if they didn't, so erring on the side of caution, they put the lockdown into place. When it was seen to be working, they kept it in place. Arguably for too long, I agree, but there wasn't much I could do about it.

Also, it is about risk management. Bringing people in for operations can expose staff and relatives to more risk of C-19, and could therefore increase the risk to others. It is not (IMO) the right thing to do either, and it needs to be scrutinised as the system has obviously failed and lives have been lost because of it. Also, a lot of cancer patients went without treatment, the reason for this is because cancer wards tend to be single room occupancy wards for the dignity of the patient and families, thus they are the easiest to convert into isolation wards, just close the bloody doors and run infection control. as many patients in cancer wards are at the stage of palliative care, it made somewhat simple yet uncomfortable sense to move them into hospices or private hospitals with smaller capacities and the ability to care for them (private hospitals are usually not equipped to deal with infectious diseases, that's why they were not used as C-19 hospitals).

Things have settled down, and the NHS is in a good position to deal with a second wave, for example, the Wife's Hospital can now get any ward C-19 isolation ready within 5 hours, that's everything from patient transfer through to deep clean and isolation units and ventilators hooked up to the air system and the A/C ventilation in that ward being put onto a separate circuit, PPE distribution and staff rota. Not bad going, so it's not all about Nurses doing the Conga up the corridor.

The problem with Covid was that it came without warning, and by the time it was identified as being so dangerous, it was too late to try and manage on an localised and specific scale. Had China been more open about it, then things would have been different, but they kept their mouths shut until Italy was knee deep in corpses and society was a danger to itself.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to see where mistakes were made. It was a trade off, do nothing and if C-19 was as bad as predicted then we'd all be working as part time gravediggers, but it went the other way. Lockdown worked, there is no doubt of that, C-19 is deadly, have a look at Italy, Brazil or the USA. Did the Govt over react? Possibly, but I'll go with that rather than the alternative.

The initial response was driven by the hysteria in the mass media, particularly that knobend Piers Morgan, and wasn't helped by the lies and cover up from China and the WHO. A public health response would have been more than appropriate to deal with the Covid outbreak, there was no need for a lockdown, certainly not one as onerous as the lockdown that was forced upon people in the UK. How many lives were saved by Police Officers searching peoples bags for 'non-essential' items?

I don't blame doctors and nurses, they do a fantastic job, but the perception that they were all rushed off their feet and being worked to death is simply not true. In fact doctors and nurses outside covid wards have never had it so easy in their careers, admissions to A&E collapsed. I have more sympathy for the underpaid and overworked staff in care homes, they were thrown into the thick of it, with less protection and less pay than those in the NHS. I'm sorry but I just don't buy the whole NHS worship, it's a failed bureaucratic healthcare system no longer fit to meet the demands of the 21st Century.

I do agree that ultimately the blame for Covid rests mostly with China, but our government bowed to media hysteria and instituted a completely unnecessary lockdown. Boris recent statement that there will be no further lockdowns I believe is an admission of this. As for PHE, why were they reporting the numbers in that manner? It's no secret these organisations are filled with remainiac liberal types, did they do it to make the Tory government look bad? I hope an inquiry will get to the bottom of it, but it stinks. Anyway, we are coming out of lockdown, the number of deaths and infections have plummeted, and the UK vaccine looks promising, so it's only good news from here. 

 

Edited July 20, 2020 by dcfc2007

[Nightcrawler]

48 minutes ago, dcfc2007 said:

The initial response was driven by the hysteria in the mass media, particularly that knobend Piers Morgan, and wasn't helped by the lies and cover up from China and the WHO. A public health response would have been more than appropriate to deal with the Covid outbreak, there was no need for a lockdown, certainly not one as onerous as the lockdown that was forced upon people in the UK. How many lives were saved by Police Officers searching peoples bags for 'non-essential' items?

I don't blame doctors and nurses, they do a fantastic job, but the perception that they were all rushed off their feet and being worked to death is simply not true. In fact doctors and nurses outside covid wards have never had it so easy in their careers, admissions to A&E collapsed. I have more sympathy for the underpaid and overworked staff in care homes, they were thrown into the thick of it, with less protection and less pay than those in the NHS. I'm sorry but I just don't buy the whole NHS worship, it's a failed bureaucratic healthcare system no longer fit to meet the demands of the 21st Century.

I do agree that ultimately the blame for Covid rests mostly with China, but our government bowed to media hysteria and instituted a completely unnecessary lockdown. Boris recent statement that there will be no further lockdowns I believe is an admission of this. As for PHE, why were they reporting the numbers in that manner? It's no secret these organisations are filled with remainiac liberal types, did they do it to make the Tory government look bad? I hope an inquiry will get to the bottom of it, but it stinks. Anyway, we are coming out of lockdown, the number of deaths and infections have plummeted, and the UK vaccine looks promising, so it's only good news from here. 

 

So, if we had not had this "unnecessary" lockdown, do you believe that the number of infections would have just magically reduced to what they are now? 

It appears that many countries have introduced lockdowns in some form or another. Do you believe that they too have been triggered by media pressure? 

The C19 virus behaves the same wherever it goes. 

[Evil Penevil]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to see where mistakes were made. It was a trade off, do nothing and if C-19 was as bad as predicted then we'd all be working as part time gravediggers, but it went the other way. Lockdown worked, there is no doubt of that, C-19 is deadly, have a look at Italy, Brazil or the USA. Did the Govt over react? Possibly, but I'll go with that rather than the alternative.

 

1 hour ago, Painter said:

Yup, and God knows who'd be shouting what if they'd done nothing and things had gone really pearshaped..... although we can have a pretty good guess!

This is very true.  Governments, whether national or local, are always trapped in a "Catch-22" situation when faced with potential catastrophes.  .If they prepare for the worst but the outcome is milder than feared, they will be criticized for  scare mongering, wasting taxpayers' money and disrupting people's lives unnecessarily.  But if the shit really hits the fan and they aren't in full disaster mode, the criticism will be much worse.

The corona virus presented a totally new set of circumstances.  After shaky starts,  the national and local governments in the U.S. and U.K. tried to position themselves for enormous pressure on their healthcare systems.  The pressure wasn't as significant as some had predicted and the extra hospital beds weren't needed.  I can't fault them, though, for preparing for a worst-case scenario.

If the health care system in any country seriously breaks down,  all of social order won't be far behind.

Evil