UK Health Minister tests positive for coronavirus
bbc.com
bbc.com
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-infected-mins...
Might end up closing parliament over this.
Yet virus can reach to everybody, and destroy people's sense of security
The democratic primaries are currently under way, both the candidates are well into their seventies. After that the presidential election starts, where the winner of the primaries faces off against the younger Donald Trump. Younger at 74 years of age (at the time of the election, now 73).
Whoever wins this election is going to be the oldest person ever to win an election for president.
What happens if they catch Coronavirus and die at an inopportune time? What happens if they just die of old age?
Maybe it won't be an issue, so far they all seem to be in reasonably good health for their age, and they all undoubtedly have access to the best medical care in the world. On the other hand they are exposed to all sorts of viruses, and they all have very high stress jobs.
Tulsi Gabbard hasn't dropped out yet, and is only 38.
...it would certainly be an interesting development if they had to go with her by default.
Oh and nearly half a dozen new cases here recently are all Britons too.
(Google for 32nd covid-19 patient in Vietnam if you want to know more)
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/
Edit: It also occurs to me that if she is from a wealthy family perhaps she tried to use private healthcare - which would be definitely be the wrong thing to do in an emergency situation.
Also, if I'm understanding the news coverage correctly, all the cases of Covid-19 exported to Vietnam from the UK are related. More specifically, they're tied to one traveller who'd recently visited Lombardy in Italy, either by flying on the same plane as her back to Vietnam whilst she had symptoms or in the case of patient 32 by having met up with her in London. Having symptoms and having met someone confirmed to have the virus would definitely qualify for testing here or most places.
If you're sent home and told to self-isolate, you're essentially being told you're likely to have it. Go home and don't give it to anybody else.
UK hospitals have 160k beds, already 90% full of sick people. They can't admit people who present with a cough, risking existing patients and staff for somebody who doesn't need support.
The hospital did the right thing here.
The patient would have been admitted if and when they got to the point where they needed support. I'm not sure what you think they would have gained by being admitted before that point. But hey-ho. Instead she flew halfway across the world, exposing who-knows how many more people on her travels. Great!
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2020-03-04b.903.0
With grim irony, voting against a motion on increasing equal access to healthcare.
We need to be focusing on mitigation.
Containment and mitigation are two entirely different strategies.
However, shouldn't everyone she had contact with be self-quarantining for 14 days now, to verify if they caught it from her or not? Is NHS recommending that? Are all her recent contacts (including these MPs) being traced and tested or quarantined?
> Public Health England had started tracing people she had had contact with, and the department and her parliamentary office were closely following its advice.
So that will probably happen within a day or two.
Well, that's not great. I hope all of them remain healthy or get well soon.
Because of this his cabinet also have to put on a brave face. Out meeting and greeting. Nothing wrong here. Carry on!
This is the result.
We need leaders and we need them to stay above ground to execute the necessary steps to prevent what could become a very nasty situation.
I might also add that at 62, given she fell ill on Friday, to say the next Tuesday:
> "It’s been pretty rubbish but I hope I’m over the worst of it now,"
They should take her blood and find out what is in it!
Here's the government's plan if you want to read it. It isn't just "carry on".
Probably better to avoid posting about them on HN.
You're going to hear about everything negative that they do, but you are unlikely to hear much about the positive steps that they take. 2 examples:
1. Trump ordered millions of masks from 3M weeks ago. Did you hear about that? [0]
2. Trump is proposing payroll tax cuts until the end of the year [1]. Did you hear about that?
My point isn't to defend anyone, just to emphasize that any news you hear about what politicians are doing is likely to be heavily skewed towards negativity, even when undeserved, so take your propaganda of choice (left and right) with a hefty grain of salt.
0. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/trump-3m-cor...
1. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/09/trump-says-hes-working-on-a-...
2. How in the hell is yet another tax cut a positive development? How will that affect the course of the crisis? Even as an economic measure, it will help no one who loses their job. Just asinine.
The president was under no obligation to order masks. There is no precedent. It was a legitimately good decision that is worth of praise, despite the various errors that the administration has already made.
The executive branch is attempting to use the market to incentivize sick leave and stimulate the economy by making business cheaper. There's a phenomenon known as the laffer curve that I encourage you to look up.
The first point in particular is what I'm talking about. It helps to take off the partisan goggles once in a while. If they'd done nothing they be criticized too.
Also don't forget that the administration very early on shut down travel with China - and some of the press (and political opponents like Schumer) did not hesitate with accusations of xenophobia.
It's possible for dumb and/or shitty people to do good things.
>A 3M spokesperson told the Star Tribune that the company was "not yet under contract for the volume mentioned" by Pence, but it was preparing to respond to the government's request for a proposal for respirators.
Note the sly language. Not under contract for the volume mentioned. Not sure where you saw they haven't been contacted, but the spin here is clear. This is a negotiation but it is presented with enough ambiguity for people to see what they want to see.
It is patently naive to believe that only the other party is guilty of bending truth.
> It is patently naive to believe that only the other party is guilty of bending truth.
I know, Obama "bent the truth" too, Sanders does it. I don't know about the rest of HN, but I'm honest enough to judge people based on what they say, independent of their "football team" affiliation. I'm guessing the majority of HN/the Internet is like that, and that's why there's "obvious unpopularity".
The left has standards, while the right's standard is "Anything we do is defensible". Trump assaults women? The left says: "Leave!", the right says: "Lies!". Al Franken grabbed women's buttocks? Both sides says "Leave!"...
I suppose the UK has to lock down now before it's too late and the hospitals start overflowing.
Also I'm worried about the Queen, I don't know what the COVID-19 death rate for 93 year olds is but it's surely supremely high.
This whole story has become so over-the-top it’s almost comical.
Every tech company falling over themselves to see who can have the “stronger response”, because they don’t want to risk the brand damage that would come from media companies singling them out as the company that let one of their people get the sniffles...
This is such blatant sensationalist fear-mongering nonsense from the media companies. It’s unfortunate that we (apparently) still give them so much power.
There's so many things wrong with what you just said. It's not just the "sniffles". Even if someone young and healthy gets it, they will survive but there's a chance they'll spread to someone who's at a much higher risk.
This is the stage to NOT give up and just let it spread all over. Being overly cautious is still much better than what could happen if this spills over to an uncontrollable level (which I fear is already the case in some areas).
That’s flu season. The flu is more transmissible, has a higher fatality rate than COVID-19, and is more dangerous for the same immunocompromised demographic (young, elderly, and those with preexisting conditions).
And you think I’m being irrational.
I have mild respiratory symptoms right now (mucus in nasal cavity, post-nasal drip, fever, aches, cough) in a region where coronavirus is prevalent. There’s a good chance that I have coronavirus right now. It’s not nearly bad enough to prevent me from working, which is often the case with coronavirus because the symptoms are usually mild.
Many people with coronavirus are completely asymptomatic, recover fully and don’t even realize they had it.
You are watching the news too much, and not being appropriately skeptical of it.
> Many people with coronavirus are completely asymptomatic, recover fully and don’t even realize they had it.
I'm not disputing any of these. YOU will be fine. The problem is, you will spread it to a lot more people and eventually the serious ones with underlying conditions will need medical care and eventually the health care services are going to be overwhelmed and rendered helpless (like is happening in Italy right now).
So basically, they're asking people not in the risk like you and I to at least not spread it to other people who might be at more risk.
You're being too skeptical of the news. WHO and other organizations are very clearly warning to take this more seriously. Pandemics are not declared every other flu season.
If you want to argue at least stay logically consistent with your own argument. Say that everyone should work from home from October to February.
Every argument you’re making applies even moreso to influenza. So, should we all work from home from October to February ???
Are we discussing opinions or facts here? I guess you're not aware of what's happening in Italy. Health services are overflowing with the ones requiring serious care. Not the ones testing out their sniffles.
https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-italy-doctor...
This conversation very quickly went from HN quality to Reddit-like, which made me look up your profile - it looks like you're new here, I'd suggest you to read a few HN quidelines :)
Didn’t mean to hurt your pride, just trying to share some rational ideas in a time of unprecedented hysteria. Think what you want.
I think you missed the main point of my previous comment again. Seriously, facts rather than opinions right now. I'll repeat again:
I guess you're not aware of what's happening in Italy. Health services are overflowing with the ones requiring serious care. Not the ones testing out their sniffles.
https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-italy-doctor...
Not sniffles - all serious cases.
On the minister: At least he could get tested. I personally know a person who has the symptoms, has been to Rome and has been denied a test because they were no registered citizen in the Netherlands (Stundent from another EU nation).
Edit: maybe she fell victim to a overworked callcenter operator, who told her the wrong reason why she wouldn't get tested.
edit I also think you should explain this to her. I understand and recognize that not all bureaucratic procedures are equally sane or understandable, but in this specific case, she's being treated as she should be ('should' as in 'what is decided is the best', not as in 'what in a few years time we will determine would have been the best'). There is no reason for her to be jaded or put off by anything health related - people have reasons to become cynical about government services, but this is not one of them. Unfortunately circumstances like this turn people off from central measures, which then undermines future global population health, much like anti-vaxxers. Consider this your opportunity to make a tiny contribution to a well-informed citizenry :)
Some homebody with symptoms that don't match? Put them at the bottom of the queue for testing if there is limited testing capacity. In the meantime, grow testing capacity as fast as you can which is 100% of political issue and not a scientific or economic one, and make as many n95 masks as possible domestically.
> "she's being treated as she should be"
That is a completely unmerited claim and one which causes harm.
Passing that protocol was negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives, but that's not the main case here.
But following that protocol was also negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives. The people on site should have acknowledged that this protocol is broken and should be ignored, and that people like her should be tested even if someone else has made a mistake.
And also endorsing following that protocol is also negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives. If some institution denies testing like this, then it's immoral to accept their actions as valid and reasonable and acceptable. It's a moral imperative to point this out, and shame them for following the (broken) system instead of doing the right thing, and remind them that "just following the orders" is not an excuse if the orders are immoral; that blindly following broken protocols is simply not okay in an epidemic emergency.
A few days delay in spreading the outbreak make a large difference in the total number of deaths. I recall an epidemiologic paper on the Wuhan case which modeled various containment scenarios, and the conclusion was that enforcing Wuhan lockdown 10 days (if I recall correctly) earlier would have reduced the number of cases and deaths threefold, and delaying Wuhan lockdown by two weeks would have increased the number of cases and deaths threefold.
When combating a large-scale crisis like this, you need well-coordinated action. The very basic thing you can not have is every Dick and Harry making their own decisions and improvising on what is the best course of action, each from their own (limited) knowledge of facts and circumstances. More concretely, you can not have every random call center employee decide for themselves whether or not to follow the explicit instructions they are given. That would devolve into chaos in a matter of hours. So no, nothing that happened here is 'negligent' or 'reckless'. ('harmful to human lives', we'll know in a few months or years, but it's a different matter all together). You need central control, and you suggesting that people should just make up their own course of action (call center employees, no less - the people tasked with the dissemination of the very protocol itself) is so far beyond my frame of understanding that I do not think we can have a meaningful discussion on this.
(and you 'recalling reading some paper on epidemiology' and basing your (seemingly very strongly held) opinion on everyone winging it on that, just confirms this view on how to manage large scale hazard events)
All other things being equal, central control has many advantages, but I strongly disagree that central control is the most important thing. A good example is the situation in Washington state - we only found out about the cases in Seattle because local labs defied CDC and tested themselves after being reportedly denied. It's definitely a good thing that they diverged from the central control, and it would definitely be a harmful thing to satisfy central control and let community spread in Seattle remain undetected.
I'm not saying that a random call center employee should arbitrarily decide, but if a local institution has enough skills, expertise and information to make an informed decision in the best interest of their patients, then they definitely should defy central control.
I once worked in a callcenter myself and auch things can happen quickly especially if you are overworked an in brain-melt territory.
The response seems pretty similar in both countries in that until a few weeks ago, you didn't get tested unless you had BOTH symptoms AND relevant history (travel or contact with known cases). In the UK, there is additionally a system of surveillance testing that is being used to ensure our model of infections is in line with reality.
Due to the increasing size of the outbreak, the UK switched a week ago to testing all ICU patients with symptoms irrespective of history. That is again soon to be ramped up to all ICU patients and any hospital patients with symptoms.
To handle the increased testing, some NHS labs are going to be running covid tests, which means the waiting time for other testing is inevitably going to increase. This is why it's important to only test as scientifically appropriate. This optimal response may differ between countries, depending on their particulars.
All that said, the UK response so far seems fairly appropriate. We've tested in line or more than any other country with a similar level of outbreak.
There is, however, a general acceptance here that widespread infection is now inevitable, and the reason you don't want to impose quarantines just yet is you want to do it when they're going to be most effective at smoothing the peak. Imposing quarantine controls now just means that people are going to start breaking quarantine later on when it's more widespread and compliance is most critical.
The reality is, containment is just a delaying strategy now. This is inevitably going to spread widely, and the governments are just trying to time when best to deploy their limited arsenal of weapons.
Very likely that was unhappy phrasing on the side of the person in the call center — worked in one myself and this can be quite exhausting.
Those responsible for deciding wether to test or not have a set of requirements, we can not test everybody.
Edit: I want to add, I totally understand not anybody who believes they have the virus can be tested and there has to be some measure that they have to apply. For me the most likely explaination is that the lady on the phone was telling her shit that is not part of the offical line.
They caught and treated countless cases of Tuberculosis and even Cholera, which stopped epidemics in the community.
It's complete and totally psychotic madness, counterproductive, and will lead to the fall of society, to deny basic medical care particularly for epidemiological conditions to "illegal aliens". Societies that do so rightly fall.
I'm totally willing to accept and concede this woman is an "illegal alien", has no right to be in the Netherlands, is a criminal, etc. Maybe she is maybe not but let's get the bullshit out of the way and say she is for the sake of argument.
Should people like this be treated and tested for virulent plagues they reasonably might have or not? What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing so? The advantages of treating plague victims seem clear, let's tighten this up and you explain to me how citizens of the Netherlands benefit by denying simple and basic treatment of plague illnesses to people because of their status as an alleged criminal or not.
Apparently, they don't test you if you don't have at least 38 degrees temperature.
Personally, I don't know the circumstances to make proper judgement. Only I commented on the statement the person wrote regarding being unregistered citizen.
In most countries residency gives you access to the local healthcare system, although to access this you usually need to register separately with a doctor/health centre.
Do you have a link ?
When she explained her background (having been back from Rome, Student, etc) thr lady on the other end asked whether she is registered in the Netherlands, she denied and the woman said: then we will not test you and hung up without further words.
Of course that is how she told the story, and she was quite angry and cynical about the whole thing, but in my judgement she didn't invent it or anything.
Society treats people inhumanely and some as a result decide to fulfill that prophecy and act inhumanely.
When I saw the videos of Chinese people spitting out their windows and licking doorknobs I thought they were evil people. Now I realize they were driven insane by uncaring sterile hypocritical dead bureaucracy. I no longer judge them as I understand what led to their madness.