Coronavirus: Boris Johnson taken to intensive care
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
I don't care if you think this is inappropriate, because I find it welcome that for once a politician has to personally face the ramifications of his fecklessness. If only more of our leaders would have to face up, we might have real leadership instead of political posturing.
You can go read the same advice he was reading on gov.uk, which states the obvious very clearly: you can't stop a virus with no vaccine by keeping everyone under indefinite house arrest. Even the dubious modellers admit that lockdown doesn't really flatten the curve, it just moves it forward. There's no solution in lockdown and it's wrong to pretend otherwise.
Given the information at the time (and still now) the original "let it spread with timed and staged lockdown" strategy was very likely correct. It becomes clearer every day. The hospitals aren't overflowing, the country hasn't run out of ventilators - not even close - and yet the economy is trashed with consequent dire impacts to the future funding of the healthcare system and other public services. The country could clearly be coping with fewer restrictions than it has now.
Despite that it's no surprise that the British left may sadly rejoice at Boris' ill fortune. It's hard to forget the parties they threw when Thatcher died.
We've converted all private provision to NHS provision; we've cancelled most elective care; we've built more than one private hospital (NHS Nightingale in London has 4,000 new beds).
We need at least 5 staff members to safely look after each ventilated patient. That's dropped right down because of covid-19, and we've already soon big changes in staff:patient ratios.
We're not at peak covid-19 yet, and we're trying to flatten the curve with social distancing and isolation measures.
Despite all this our ICUs are overflowing.
Listen to this doctor in Wales (you only need the first minute to hear how many patients they have) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejlbCmRJMW4
Or this junior doctor who works in A&E, who talks about the large changes in patient flow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN6Trgzf9kY
Part of the reason they're empty is that pneumonia and respiratory illness has hardly moved, yet cardiac, gastro and others have fallen off a cliff. That implies people with serious non-COVID problems are staying away from hospitals when they need care, because they've been told they have to "save the NHS".
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Anecdotes from single ICUs can be misleading. We were told northern Italy was overflowing, that the healthcare system had collapsed. So I was a bit surprised when I learned that hospitals in Veneto were 2/3rds empty and other hospitals in the region of Lombardy were also not really at capacity. We were shown the pictures from Bergamo but not much elsewhere.
In the USA the media showed harrowing pictures of people queuing up outside overloaded hospitals, people visited those hospitals themselves after the news had gone and found they were quiet.
In Switzerland there is a problem with hospitals now needing financial bailouts because the flood of corona patients hasn't arrived, but they also don't have the revenue from all the other operations that would be happening. Hospitals needing bailouts otherwise they must furlough medical staff! That's not at all expected, surely?
In the US states are sending ventilators to each other because they don't need them.
It's possible that a very busy ICU doesn't translate to a busy hospital, or other mundane factors. But the picture being painted across the world with respect to hospital load is quite chaotic and I would be unwilling to assume "our ICUs are overflowing", especially as overflowing doesn't mean the same as very busy.
At any rate, there's a wider point being made here: given the measures taken the healthcare system is not currently turning away patients or even reducing standards of care (5 staff for one patient, that's a lot!). That was the scenario that motivated the current lockdowns. Given the catastrophic damage being created by the global shutdown, the hospitals actually should be overflowing to justify it - as in, patients being taken to hospitals far from where they were picked up, queues for beds, really dire stuff. In London there are suggestions it's already at peak and if that's as bad as it gets, it's really hard to understand why artificially creating a new great depression is justified. The effects on lives of a new 1930s style depression could be horrific.
He’s in intensive care and his wife is pregnant. I hope he gets better soon and I hope his family are doing ok at this difficult time.
Prime Minister Johnson is not married.
In 1987, he married Allegra Mostyn-Owen. That was annulled in 1993.
Twelve days later he married Marina Wheeler.
Johnson and Wheeler finalised their divorce in February 2020.
On February 29th Johnson announced his engagement to Carrie Symonds.
He is engaged to be married, and his fiancée is expecting.
But he is not currently married.
More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson#Relationships
In case it’s not clear, I am not being snarky in any way and respect you, I just find your comment so out of touch that I genuinely wanted to understand the reasons for you writing it.
<fx: shrug /> It happens to me that sometimes I'm focused on something to the extent that I don't always see the bigger picture. I don't wish the man harm, I do hope he makes a complete recovery.
Another stupid thing: People have been burning down cell towers because they think 5G causes corona. Only to leave their area to be less covered by telephone network, possibly making it harder to reach emergency services.
edit: I know many leaders have changed their views to more realistic ones, but I do wonder how they could be so misinformed in the beginning.
The official information coming out of China was "mostly mild courses, mostly kills old people with pre-existing conditions, kind of like the flu".
Later, the official information coming out of Italy was "mostly mild courses, mostly kills old people with pre-existing conditions, kind of like the flu".
Therefore, if you're not going to make a big fuss about the flu, why make one about COVID-19? Quite a few actual virologists took this stance, at least for a while. The alarmists won the battle for attention, but not because of superior information.
That was also before Italy was overwhelmed. Even experts underestimated just how virulent COVID-19 was going to be and how many people were going to get it in such short order of time.
However, the fact remains that it's mostly mild courses, mostly kills old people with pre-existing conditions - kind of like the flu.
If the flu kills an otherwise healthy person, which happens all the time, it's not news. COVID-19 is an unprecedented media spectacle, with unprecedented reactions from governments across the world, mob mentality is driving more and more drastic responses.
It's not a foregone conclusion that these drastic responses were the right measure. Sweden has done pretty much nothing, yet their graphs don't look any worse than those of other European countries. Perhaps they're covering it all up, but perhaps all of this social distancing, all this shutdown does very little to slow the spread of this disease if just a few people go shopping once a week, if just a few people go to work and carry it home. We don't know, because we don't know how COVID-19 actually spreads.
History is written by the winners. Had COVID-19 turned out less severe, the alarmists would've been decried as oversensitive fools. Now the anti-alarmists are being portrayed as irresponsible. Yet, both acted in good faith on the same information. Don't forget that the price of the shutdown is a major recession, it's not a simple political decision to make. The principle of charity must be applied.
>Later, the official information coming out of Italy was "mostly mild courses, mostly kills old people with pre-existing conditions, kind of like the flu".
In both cases, the information also included extremely rapid uncontrolled spread, a much higher death rate than the flu, and overwhelming available medical resources. This was known for a very long time; as far back as early January in China.
>The alarmists won the battle for attention, but not because of superior information.
I'm not sure calling the people who were correct "alarmists" is aging well. And you still are apparently dismissing it as 'luck', that they were correct, because you state their information was no better.
>Even experts underestimated just how virulent COVID-19 was going to be and how many people were going to get it in such short order of time.
I seem to recall predictions of crazy R0 values for coronavirus back in early January. I, too, thought it was probably at the "overdone" side of things, again, in early January, before we had more information. But the picture started becoming much more clear by early February, and certainly mid-February. And we continued to do NOTHING in the US, at least into mid-March. And even once we spent a month ignoring the devastating consequences in Italy, much of the US hand-waved it away, and explained that they're all old people, and it could never happen here.
Then once it started happening here, we started hearing from governors of southern states, explaining how it can't happen THERE because they're not Washington. Or California. And then it became "we're not New York". I'm sorry, but the level of intentional ignorance on this matter has played out over many, many months, over and over again, in precisely the same, predictable pattern. And here you are, claiming nobody could have known, and the alarmists got lucky.
>History is written by the winners. Had COVID-19 turned out less severe, the alarmists would've been decried as oversensitive fools. Now the anti-alarmists are being portrayed as irresponsible. Yet, both acted in good faith on the same information.
Wrong.
A high death rate in the beginning isn't meaningful. Early on during the Swine Flu, mortality was estimated at 0.5%[1], later estimates were ten times lower[2].
This was described as the "tip of the iceberg" phenomenon in a Q&A on a Harvard website[3] as late as early March. That section was later removed.
As for "uncontrolled spread", we've all seen footage of masses of people storming the hospitals in an entirely unsanitary manner, we've seen people getting dragged off the streets, for the crime of having an elevated temperature, then getting force-quarantined in open halls with no regards to safety. If this was an overwhelmed healthcare system, it wasn't clear that the blame could be put on the virus.
> This was known for a very long time; as far back as early January in China.
It wasn't, but hindsight is 20/20. In mid-January there were less than 500 confirmed cases and no good estimate on the number of unconfirmed cases. Less than thirty people had died, over the course of two months in which likely a comparable number of people in Wuhan died from Influenza, but didn't make the news.
> I'm not sure calling the people who were correct "alarmists" is aging well.
They were the alarmists at the time and will forever have been so. Some of their predictions may have turned out correct, others may yet turn out correct, others may turn out incorrect.
The Swine Flu, as predicted, could have killed 120 million people[4], but then it didn't, even without any shutdowns.
> And you still are apparently dismissing it as 'luck', that they were correct, because you state their information was no better.
Of course their information wasn't any better. Everyone had access to the same information. The difference is in its interpretation, not so much based on luck but personal disposition. Again, not all virologists made the same dire predictions.
> I seem to recall predictions of crazy R0 values for coronavirus back in early January. I, too, thought it was probably at the "overdone" side of things, again, in early January, before we had more information.
Yes, you saw predictions of crazy R0 values that you yourself weren't ready to believe. At the time it wasn't solid information, and it never will have been.
> But the picture started becoming much more clear by early February, and certainly mid-February.
By mid-February, less than 2000 people had died worldwide from COVID-19, compared to at least 10,000 deaths from Influenza in the US alone. I'm not saying the "flu comparison" is a valid comparison, but at that point in time, it was still allowed to be made, even by experts.
> And we continued to do NOTHING in the US, at least into mid-March.
Neither did most European countries. Even in Italy, there was no nation-wide shutdown until March 9th.
> Wrong.
Wrong how? Your comment is a good example of an inaccurate historical account, as written by those who ended up on "the right side".
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2840.full
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784967/
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20200304132800/https://www.healt...
[4] https://metro.co.uk/2009/04/26/swine-flu-could-kill-up-to-12...
You're correct. It wasn't a "gotcha" on your part. I volunteered that information to point out that I was not an alarmist, I wasn't ready to believe the most "alarming" predictions, and yet, somehow, it was still clear to me and the entirety of mainstream thought in the US, how bad it was going to be, before the most contrarian commentators were willing to admit.
>Neither did most European countries. Even in Italy, there was no nation-wide shutdown until March 9th.
In the US, it was still theoretically possible to contain it with "just" 19 confirmed cases at the end of February, even though, of course, that meant likely 10 times+ as many people had it, and were spreading it, when community spread was first reported on February 29[1]
Once community spread was found in the US, and given our lack of ability to test for it, it was a foregone conclusion that it would spread like wildfire in the US, because containment is impossible if you don't know who's infected but asymptomatic.
Already in that first week of March, tech companies such as LinkedIn were already sending people home for the month[2], because it was beyond clear we were going to see rapid community spread. "We are 10 days behind Italy" was a common saying in mid-March.
My own company sent us home later that first week, as we had direct links to places with known community spread. It was out of an abundance of caution, as I don't believe anyone ever got infected. It was an aggressive move, but it turned out to be the right move.
10 days later, a shelter in place order was sent out for the ENTIRE BAY AREA, and then a few days later, for the entire state.
And here we are, 3 weeks later, folks in Georgia saying "we are not Louisiana" (I had to update that from "we are not California" and "we are not New York" because the states ignorant leaders compare themselves to keep shifting as one by one the dominos fall)
>By mid-February, less than 2000 people had died worldwide from COVID-19, compared to at least 10,000 deaths from Influenza in the US alone. I'm not saying the "flu comparison" is a valid comparison, but at that point in time, it was still allowed to be made, even by experts.
It was still "allowed to be made" by people who cannot perform simple extrapolation.
Yes, just because a graph is going up today does not mean it will go up tomorrow -- absent any other evidence
But with a known long incubation period, and roughly 1 month between infection and death, you can know for virtual fact that it's not going to stop at 2000 deaths when known infections is an order of magnitude higher, and there is basically no testing, and absolutely no reason for it to have stopped spreading. (eg, no preventive measures in place, no reason to expect the virus to die off on its own, etc).
And now we have a bunch of people who listened to contrarian opinions to convince themselves that "it couldn't happen here" are going back to find "evidence" to piece together a tenuous line of thinking that could have led even an informed person to be wrong. But constructive a narrative from historically cherry-picked statements is not the same thing as having weighed the available evidence at the time.
[1]https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/three-st...
[2]https://www.businessinsider.com/linkedin-tells-employees-to-...
If the flu did that, I would be much more scared of the flu.
If you look at the Chinese action jan-feb then you already know enough. A lot of people knew that, but they rather look at the data that china provides. example: If you see 100 purple cars in a picture, but china data says only 10 purple cars, and they are all old cars.
I think this was mostly caused because we have economical leaders: economy, numbers, and studies before action.
However, it can also reduce symptoms. Shorten the flu, if not eliminate it. All of these things can make a difference at the margins; make a vulnerable person merely sick instead of deadly sick.
And most importantly for those vulnerable folks at the highest risk of dying, the vaccine makes them less likely to come in contact with someone who spreads the flu to them in the first place.
Every decision they make in the current pandemic climate could take or potentially save lives. Some of them being their loved ones.
> "I was at a hospital the other night where I think there were a few coronavirus patients and I shook hands with everybody, you will be pleased to know, and I continue to shake hands," he said. "People obviously can make up their own minds but I think the scientific evidence is… our judgement is that washing your hands is the crucial thing."
https://www.newsweek.com/boris-johnson-says-shaken-hands-cor...
This may be the first crisis where shooting your mouth off about things you know little about backfires - quickly and lethally.
I suspect there will be many instances of this sort of thing in the months to come. False predictions about "light at the end of the tunnel." Panicked re-instatements of lockdowns after premature lifting. Miracle cures that turn deadly because drugs are much more complicated than they seem.
All the while cheerleaders with hidden agendas will continue to promote dangerous, ill-informed opinions.
Now he’s in ICU and may not survive.
Let those without sin cast the first stone.
> The facts changed and he changed his mind
He was pushing against scientific advise at first without good reason when the time is the essence. Nobody should wish him iĺl, but using him as an example is justified.
And it’s easy to prove that this virus was considered dangerous even back then: this whole shtick of shaking hands and talking about it doesn’t make any sense except against the backdrop of people warning against it.
It was a macho bravado move; performative politics put on as a gambit to win another news cycle in the endless culture wars. And it is so obvious a parallel to Brexit, from the blatant disregard of evidence, expertise, and science all the way to the hints of racism, that no appeal of “not the day to get into the politics” will be able to prevent people from seeing the obvious: it was incredibly stupid.
To not point out how his kind of politics is now endangering his life would waste an opportunity to learn, at a moment where decisions can still influence outcomes, and good decisions can make the difference for thousands of people who may or may not die. With that in mind, it is also in everyone’s interest, beyond basic humanity demanding it, to hope for his survival: Boris Johnson is a terrible person in many regards, but he isn’t entirely stupid. There’s a good chance he would learn from this, and he may well be the perfect ambassador that can get through to his fans.
He is a prime minister with direct access to intelligence services, he should of known better.
Saying that “he may not survive“ is perfectly reasonable. It’s not saying he’s definitely going to die. I hope the media wouldn’t sensationalize it like this, but there is definitely a chance that he will die.
Those groups are higher risk, but that doesn't mean everyone else is "no risk".
Here's a twitter thread that contains a link to data from English, Welsh, and Northern Irish intensive care units.
Heck, none of their other cities were impacted by it but the disease has made its way to London, NYC, and all the major other cities.
Whenever they shown Xi Jinping in Wuhan or any member of the politburo visiting hospitals and such they were all wearing masks, sometimes even rubber gloves too.
I do hope they get their animal market hygiene together. It’s a bit crazy how many viruses have originated from China.