This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Do they think we're fools?
Hancock set what was always a challenging (and slightly puzzling) target of 100,000 tests CONDUCTED every day.
Today they announced they'd achieved it - incredible! Except they hadn't. Approximately 80,000 tests were conducted today - still quite impressive - and 29,000 were sent out, although it was explicitly said at the beginning of the month those wouldn't count, but apparently now they do - and 12,000 were sent to 3rd parties of some sort or another, which they didn't choose to clarify.
I thought Hancock did OK today - obviously he thinks he's going to be able to keep his job for another week or two - but why oh why can they not break this habit of lying?
57
20
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Fake news, basically play the Trump card. Your supporters believe you, your opposition won't like you anyway. It will now be gospel that they were successful. We're in a post factual world.
29
8
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> Do they think we're fools?
>
Not all of us. They just know they have enough believers who don't care. Like Trump.
It's awful.
E
36
7
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
If we only took the same approach in sport the UK could have the world records for everything. Just move the goalposts a bit.
I wonder if he actually has 40k tests to mail out every day or if he held back 40k test kits to send them all out on April 30th to inflate the figures for one day. I also wonder how many of those 40K postal tests were claimed on the web by Tory party members as a result of the mailing by the government a few days ago.
6
13
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Because the media like to punish people for not meeting completely arbitrary targets. If they had conducted 99,999 tests it would still be plastered all over certain papers as "government fails to meet target".
The reality is 100k tests is just a number someone plucked out of the air as the sort of scale of testing we ideally need to be doing. It's unlikely to just happen to be the answer to some analysis of the exact number of tests required in our population to solve our problems.
If the media were not so critical and said "government massively increases testing" then 89k or whatever would be something to brag about. Makes me wonder why they bother setting defined targets at all really.
23
28
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Who was the "someone"?
15
1
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
> Because the media like to punish people
I think they've largely had a free pass. Only now as deaths push 30,000 are we seeing anger.
Post edited at 18:26
28
8
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I see Johnson was saying "UK had avoided the tragedy that had engulfed other places", which is just a tadge optimistic.
I think they bring the poor press coverage /questioning on themselves - all Hat Mancock had to say was sorry, we haven't hit the test target, it doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things as it was somewhat arbitrary and we're working our hardest to increase testing numbers.
30
4
In reply to George Ormerod:
Exactly.
5
4
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
It was never in doubt that 100k was going to be achieved. The trick was allowing 1 month to do it.
this allowed phe to put their public sector is best attitude behind them and link up with the private sector( like in Germany).
over the past few weeks drive in test centres have opened op all within 15 miles of mine.
So the time was critical to allow everything to,be put into place.
the reali issue is that this should have happened in March not April
7
1
In reply to George Ormerod:
This.....and sensible people would surely shrug their shoulders, think “ambitious target, good effort in getting close” and accept it. Instead we are treated like idiots and lied to.
16
6
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
> The reality is 100k tests is just a number someone plucked out of the air as the sort of scale of testing we ideally need to be doing. It's unlikely to just happen to be the answer to some analysis of the exact number of tests required in our population to solve our problems.
No. THe number was set early in April by Matt Hancock as a measure of progress of the availablility of testing as part of the governments covid strategy, and repeated regularly by him and others. Yes its a random, large, round number, but its a number he chose, and repeated. To his, and many others credit, we are now testing a significant number each day, and i would much rather him take the credit for this actual increase (approx 80k actual tests done) and get to 100k by (say) next weekend than try to cover up a "failure" by the "stretcing of the truth". Now he'll be known as a liar (nothing new there for him....) rather than someone who was ambitious an almost made it.
> If the media were not so critical and said "government massively increases testing" then 89k or whatever would be something to brag about. Makes me wonder why they bother setting defined targets at all really.
Becvause if you dont set the target, you will guarantee rubbish performance. Bear also in mind you appear to be targeting only a couple of governemnt critical printed media. The rest of them are somewhat more sycophantic.
18
3
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Not lie.....
Come on now, that would be like a clown without a big red nose and boots.
1
1
Hancock mailed the Tory party membership a few days ago and invited them to apply online for tests.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-test-matt-hancoc...
If he held back 40k test kits to mail out and could be confident that a bunch of Tories would take him up on the e-mail then he basically had it fixed as long as there were more than 60k tests done on April 30.
The big question is can he do 100k tests *every* day.
Post edited at 06:13
9
4
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
It's more critical why have politicians not learnt to avoid setting precise goals. They set themselves up for a fall every time. They've been doing it for years, inflation, unemployment, annual deficit, migration etc.
They should listen to Sturgeon. "It's possible" "we may"... use strong sentencing but always throw in a "maybe" or "perhaps" phrase ... the core electorate will only hear your goal message, but when it goes wrong you've got that maybe word to fall back on.
Post edited at 06:52
2
2
In reply to summo:
The counter argument is that Sturgeon did not have to set a goal she rode on the back of the U.K. target so to speak
Targets are useful in a situation like this they can set an overall objective to focus on.focuses the decision makers on the key issue both in the public and private arena. In that respect it was sensible to do.
it allowed a month to get upto speed.
8
In reply to neilh:
I agree, targets goals deadlines are beneficial. It gives something to aim for and many folk only really getting going when deadlines loom.
But, keep them more in house as the press and public just obsess with them. Rather than the news being testing has trebled ( or whatever it is), the press declare it a failure because some round figure wasn't achieved.
1
1
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Do you remember when this Government tried to exclude some broadcasters from government meetings and haven't not been going on programmes such as Today. This is a government who from the start hasn't wanted to be held to account or scrutinised.
Given Matt Hannock has repeated this target many times it is right and proper that he's held to it and the media is the only way of doing it. These ministers are responsible for and need to be held to account for the way they handle this crisis.
You are right the media do often seem to have an agenda but given that peoples lives are at stake, I think they are doing pretty well during this situation.
13
4
In reply to Ian W:
> To his, and many others credit, we are now testing a significant number each day, and i would much rather him take the credit for this actual increase (approx 80k actual tests done) and get to 100k by (say) next weekend than try to cover up a "failure" by the "stretcing of the truth".
Exactly this. The increase in testing capacity over the course of April is really impressive but has now been somewhat overshadowed by this ridiculous debate over whether they hit their target. Though part of me wonders if it's deliberate (kind of like their comically bad ads during the GE) and if they're basically trolling their opponents by missing their target but changing their definition so they can claim they've hit it. This is a government that thrives on culture wars and promoting a 'them against us' mentality amongst their supporters after all. They get massive kudos for hitting it from all the people who would've supported them whatever they did but they also get to point the finger at their critics in the media and accuse them of crowing or whatever.
2
In reply to neilh:
> Targets are useful in a situation like this they can set an overall objective to focus on.focuses the decision makers on the key issue both in the public and private arena. In that respect it was sensible to do.
Targets are useful but the lying and massaging of the data to pretend they have been achieved puts in sharp relief the dishonesty, moral decrepitude, and incompetence of this government.
Post edited at 09:43
11
4
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
The replies on this thread show why they did a bit of creative accounting that was hardly hidden from anyone... And I am certainly no fan of this government.
The real story is they have seriously ramped up our testing capability which will need to grow further admittedly if we are going to successfully track and trace in the future....
9
1
In reply to Blunderbuss:
> The replies on this thread show why they did a bit of creative accounting that was hardly hidden from anyone... And I am certainly no fan of this government.
> The real story is they have seriously ramped up our testing capability which will need to grow further admittedly if we are going to successfully track and trace in the future....
Exactly, they have managed to transform a relative success into another display of blatant lying and dishonesty.
10
7
In reply to Blunderbuss:
I agree. So why didn't they say so?
3
2
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Well they did didn't they as they were pretty transparent about how many were posted out...I honestly don't think it matters in the grand scheme of things.
IMO it's not like the 50k new nurses bollocks they came out with before the GE...
7
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Hang on there. Scenario 1: you set an undefined target of ramping up testing "as fast as we can", people work quite hard and achieve 70,000 tests. Scenario 2: you set a defined target of reaching 100,000 tests by the end of the month, people put everything into it and achieve 80,000. Which is better?
Yes, I agree, it would have been better if Hancock and friends had been more honest yesterday and not included the 40,000 posted out but not yet returned, but unfortunately we live in a society where scenario 2 is seen as failure. It isn't.
Martin
7
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Why do they lie ? Short answer is that it is now a proven strategy.
4
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I'm waiting for it to come out that the government defined "100,000 tests" as each area swabbed. Two tonsils and a nostril equals three tests but only one actual person. Seems par for the course after the revelations on PPE accounting.
2
4
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
One reason - https://twitter.com/stevebakerhw/status/1256312806896365568?s=21
The increase in tests has been a (qualified) success. The government would like everyone talking about the testing numbers, rather than - how long it took, how many have died, failure to protect care homes etc.
1
2
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
It's good to set ambitious targets and do we really want to discourage the governement from being ambitious in such matters?
Maybe there would less pressure to massage the figures if it wasn't for the baying mob mentality of other political parties, inept journalists and feckwits on social media?
7
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:Perhaps the more important question is do we need to do 100,000 tests a day at present?
If they cannot be put to good use it may be better to hold some test kits in reserve in case thay are needed later.
> The big question is can he do 100k tests *every* day.
If they cannot be put to good use it may be better to hold some test kits in reserve in case thay are needed later.
3
1
In reply to timjones:
> Perhaps the more important question is do we need to do 100,000 tests a day at present?
The U.K. have done fewer tests per capita than nearly every other country in the western world. The countries who’ve done the most tests have been far more successful in limiting the spread of the virus.
We have over 1m working in the NHS and over 1m working in the care sector. Don’t you think that care home deaths would have been far lower if tests had been widely available for care home staff? And that’s without even considering contact tracing or random sampling.
5
3
In reply to stevieb:
> The U.K. have done fewer tests per capita than nearly every other country in the western world. The countries who’ve done the most tests have been far more successful in limiting the spread of the virus.
> We have over 1m working in the NHS and over 1m working in the care sector. Don’t you think that care home deaths would have been far lower if tests had been widely available for care home staff? And that’s without even considering contact tracing or random sampling.
Simple answer, I don't know.
Do you or are you just guessing?
3
2
In reply to timjones:
> Simple answer, I don't know.
> Do you or are you just guessing?
I don’t have any additional information, but I work in forecasting. Suggesting that reducing the number of infected care workers reduces deaths in care homes is a blatantly obvious starting assumption.
4
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Targets can be arbitrary, does it really matter if we hit 100,000, 97,000 or 103,000 by a specific date and even if 100,00 is the 'magic' number does it really matter if we reached that by April 29th, 30th or May 1st?
Targets can distort priorities but they can also galvanise people into action to get things done. If we don't want politicians to make disingenuous claims about targets then we, the public, need to be less eager to use marginal failure to meet them as a stick to beat them with. And if you don't like targets at all then blame New Labour who elevated target setting to a religion!
If you heard the news conference yesterday you'll know that Hancock was certainly not gloating over his 'success', indeed he specifically said the success was not his and immediately praised those who had delivered the target.
The relevant bit starts at 9mins
youtube.com/watch?v=AnOihK3lr30&
Interestingly Andy Burnham who as a former health secretary knows rather more about these things than any of us, was rather more charitable in his view of this achievement and he has every reason to play party politics but as a wiser, elder statesam chose not to because he knows it's not actually helpful in pursuit of the bigger goal of getting over the pandemic. He is essentially saying that however you take the figures, this is a great achievement but having now built the capacity for testing the next step is deploying it properly.
The interview starts at 1hr 12mins in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000hq2d
Your narrative is clearly a popular one amoungst a certain group, i.e. people who will never vote Tory in a million years, but for the rest of the population there has been a significant and frankly impressive acceleration in the rate of testing which ultimately is more important than arbitrary targets.
Post edited at 12:19
11
6
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
God only know how they let him get away with that bollocks. You can't mix tests actually performed with "kits sent out" ( I suppose that is probably supposes to be "swabs taken, with kits sent out" in reality).
What's the chance of those 30k kits sent out being counted again when they come back in? pretty high I think.
7
5
In reply to pec:
Can you reply to my original question? WTF did he feel the need to lie in public? The actual achievement was impressive enough.
(I'm not clear what the testing as currently configured is actually achieving, but that's a different question.)
3
3
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
People on Twitter now saying they got their test kit without the label to send it back and when they called the helpline were told to bin it (presumably there's a tracking number on the label and its pointless sending it in without it)..
1
4
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I noticed the target for acquiring ventilators has been reduced, presumably because there's not a lot of hope of reaching it.
5
In reply to neilh:
> Targets are useful in a situation like this they can set an overall objective to focus on.focuses the decision makers on the key issue both in the public and private arena. In that respect it was sensible to do.
I could set myself a target of beating the world record for 100m. It might motivate me to try harder and I might run a bit faster as a result but I wouldn't have a hope in hell of actually doing it and I'd look like a prat if I told everybody about it. I'd be far better off choosing a more realistic target.
If I then measured my time at 50m rather than 100m and claimed I'd hit my target and it was a huge achievement then I'd be a bullsh*t artist.
2
5
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I think the reason they lie is quite simple. Lying has become such an habitual norm for them, they're almost incapable of doing anything else. It's like a reflex action. Any other explanation of course is much darker.
Post edited at 14:45
4
5
In reply to Timmd:
> I noticed the target for acquiring ventilators has been reduced, presumably because there's not a lot of hope of reaching it.
Clinical experience has shown that not as many will now be required, as considered likely a number of weeks back. Keep chasing shadows though!
6
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
> Clinical experience has shown that not as many will now be required, as considered likely a number of weeks back. Keep chasing shadows though!
Thank you for the put down, I may return the favour. Most agreeable of you.
Post edited at 15:04
1
5
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
We are now officially living in La La Land. (But 30% of our new passports are in the post).
1
3
In reply to Timmd:
> Thank you for the put down, I may return the favour. Most agreeable of you.
You wrote: "I noticed the target for acquiring ventilators has been reduced, presumably because there's not a lot of hope of reaching it."
If you continue to look for dark motives in everything, then you will probably succeed in finding them.
For myself, I am prepared in this case to believe that, since the clinical assessment is now that the UK will not require as many ventilators as previously thought or feared, the 'target for acquiring ventilators' has naturally been reduced. (In case you are unaware, the government has also told Dyson that it will no longer require that company to pursue its ventilator programme.)
4
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> WTF did he feel the need to lie in public?
Calibrating what they can get away with for future reference?
1
4
In reply to Rob Parsons:
> You wrote: "I noticed the target for acquiring ventilators has been reduced, presumably because there's not a lot of hope of reaching it."
> If you continue to look for dark motives in everything, then you will probably succeed in finding them.
It's not as if previous governments haven't spun, obfuscated, lied and covered things up, and I'd always like my darker suspicions to be proven wrong.
> For myself, I am prepared in this case to believe that, since the clinical assessment is now that the UK will not require as many ventilators as previously thought or feared, the 'target for acquiring ventilators' has naturally been reduced. (In case you are unaware, the government has also told Dyson that it will no longer require that company to pursue its ventilator programme.)
Is it that you know that clinical experience has shown that fewer are needed, or are taking it on trust that it has because you believe in the competency of those in charge? Are you aware that the ventilators ordered from China are suspected to actually be lethal?
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-hundreds-of-ventilators-uk-bought-fr...
It can't be argued that there hasn't been 4 years (or 3 and a bit) to prepare for this following the pandemic model carried out in 2016, by ordering more ventilators gradually over time. I'm not looking for darkness, I'm just angry at the incompetency.
Post edited at 15:32
1
2
In reply to Timmd:
> Are you aware that the ventilators ordered from China are suspected to actually be lethal?
Yes; I read that those won't be used. But as I wrote: clinical experience now shows that we don't as many ventilators as was thought a few weeks ago.
1
In reply to Rob Parsons: Yes, you did write that, what I'm asking is, which clinical experience?
Post edited at 15:49
2
In reply to Rob Parsons:
'For myself, I am prepared in this case to believe that, since the clinical assessment is now that the UK will not require as many ventilators as previously thought or feared, the 'target for acquiring ventilators' has naturally been reduced. (In case you are unaware, the government has also told Dyson that it will no longer require that company to pursue its ventilator programme.)'
What a shame Hancock isn't on UKC, he could have saved any amount of civil servants' time, energy and money, internet bandwidth, broadcast time and newspaper column inches not embarking on a project that was never going to fly - and was clearly anticipated here from the outset. There always was rather more to ventilators than switching a vacuum cleaner from suck to blow.
I agree that the ventilator decision may be sensible - I don't have enough information to judge. But I do know that Hancock is a liar.
1
3
In reply to Timmd:
> Yes, you did write that, what I'm asking is, which clinical experience?
There has been a lot of recent discussion about this. (See e.g. https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/21/coronavirus-analysis-recommends-less-re... , https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-germany-treating-its-coronavirus-pat... , https://time.com/5820556/ventilators-covid-19/ , etc. - you can use Google as well as I can.) The commentary from Germany might appear particularly interesting.
None of this should be a surprise: it's a new disease, and the experts involved are studying its progression and treatment in real time.
2
In reply to Rob Parsons:
> There has been a lot of recent discussion about this. (See e.g. https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/21/coronavirus-analysis-recommends-less-re... , https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-germany-treating-its-coronavirus-pat... , https://time.com/5820556/ventilators-covid-19/ , etc. - you can use Google as well as I can.) The commentary from Germany might appear particularly interesting.
There's certain tone to your comments, yes I can use google, we all can. Well done. Since you gave the impression of knowing more whilst replying to me, it was yourself who I asked, pretty logically really.
Post edited at 16:01
1
2
In reply to stevieb:
> I don’t have any additional information, but I work in forecasting. Suggesting that reducing the number of infected care workers reduces deaths in care homes is a blatantly obvious starting assumption.
It certainly is but I suspect that trying to do so by testing a workforce of 1 million often enough to have a real effect is going to be an uphill struggle. Better results are likely to be achieved by looking at actions such as careful isolation.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Gordon, I think you have the correct answer. It's a reflex.
2
In reply to Timmd:
> There's certain tone to your comments, yes I can use google, we all can. Well done. Since you gave the impression of knowing more whilst replying to me it was yourself who I asked, pretty logically really.
The specific British report I had in mind was given in an interview with a medical expert on Newsnight a week or so (?) ago. I cannot now remember the person's name, but you might be able to find it with a search. However, the conclusion was that the numbers of ventilators in the UK is now not considered a problem. (The links above rehearse some related reasoning.)
Continue to believe the reverse if you want; I have no interest in persuading you.
3
In reply to Rob Parsons:
> The specific British report I had in mind was given in an interview with a medical expert on Newsnight a week or so (?) ago. I cannot now remember the person's name, but you might be able to find it with a search. However, the conclusion was that the numbers of ventilators in the UK is now not considered a problem. (The links above rehearse some related reasoning.)
Thank you.
> Continue to believe the reverse if you want; I have no interest in persuading you.
''It's not as if previous governments haven't spun, obfuscated, lied and covered things up, and I'd always like my darker suspicions to be proven wrong.''
Given that I posted the above, perhaps I'm not the one who is chasing shadows? Whatever has irked you, don't take it out on myself, or others on UKC.
Post edited at 16:10
1
In reply to neilh:
> The counter argument is that Sturgeon did not have to set a goal she rode on the back of the U.K. target so to speak
Actually Scotland did have a target which had been missed by a mile.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18420653.coronavirus-reshaped-figures-s...
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> There always was rather more to ventilators than switching a vacuum cleaner from suck to blow.
I believe Dyson’s ventilator is now in clinical trials and has been for at least 8 days.
In reply to wintertree:
That would be impressive. No mention on their website yet though?
In reply to wintertree:
I'd really like to know your source for that. If you have one, I'll have egg on my face; but until I see evidence of something different I'll stick to my belief that it was a wildly optimistic, wildly simplistic aspiration which suited both parties for PR purposes but with no real chance of success.
Dyson says he has spent £20 million on the project; if you could develop a life support piece of kit for that sort of money then they'd be one by every hospital bedside, worldwide.
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> [...] source [...]
A BBC article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52409359 - so not a primary source. “Dyson's ventilator has been undergoing clinical tests in recent days and the government had previously said it intended to order 10,000 machines.”
> Dyson says he has spent £20 million on the project; if you could develop a life support piece of kit for that sort of money then they'd be one by every hospital bedside, worldwide.
That doesn’t seem crazy - have you seen Tesla’s video from their effort using a lot of car parts? youtube.com/watch?v=zZbDg24dfN0& - nothing in that video looks that expensive and there’s only so much you can spend on staff time in 6 weeks...
As devices for, I don’t think they’re intrinsically that complicated; what is difficult and expensive is making the device highly reliable, highly fail safe and fully certified. The auto industry deals with a lot of this (eg MISRA C for software) under a different regulatory framework but with the same motivation - life critical systems. No idea if Dyson got that far with his cars.
Post edited at 11:25
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...