• Community Members: Please be respectful of other peoples' opinions within our online community

Covid response ‘one of UK’s worst ever public health failures’

Status
Not open for further replies.

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
I think people are perhaps frustrated because this discussion has taken place before, and during which you agreed to differ.

My personal position would be that in terms of clear messaging it is actually quite important that the public understand these tests in the context of COVID-19 rather that the specific virus which is being tested for.

Not least because high enough levels of the virus to provide a positive test suggest that an individual is capable of spreading the virus whether or not they have symptoms. And the spread of the virus (which we are testing for) directly correlates to people developing COVID-19, some of whom will have a mild illness, and some of whom will have a severe illness and may even die.

In a technical sense it may well be the disease that comes from the virus that kills them rather than the virus itself, but I don’t really feel the difference (and stressing the difference in public health announcements) would do anything other than cause confusion, worry, guideline resistance, and generally muddy the waters.

Members of the public call Covid 19 ‘the virus’. So the test showing they are positive for the virus sarscov2 (even if they exhibit no symptoms) is sufficient to make it worthwhile then isolating from others, especially the vulnerable, as they have virus to spread which could lead to Covid 19 in others.

Sometimes all there needs to be to prevent people taking appropriate and precautionary action to protect others around them is just the hint of a little doubt and confusion. Reports do mention sarscov2, when stories need that detail. But for the vast majority of the time the disease COVID-19 and the virus which causes it should be referred to in as clear and simple a way as possible.
Hi @everydayupsanddowns

Thanks for your reply. I get your message about the keeping it simple etc, but I also think it equally important people do know the difference. I'm finding people don't actually have any idea at all of the difference. I'm not suggesting the general message should change in anyway, still need to isolate, wash hands, masks, social distancing, testing etc but surely far better to use the right term rather than the wrong one. I'm seeing the "covid19" test been quoted in medical studies too! :rolleyes:

When things get overly simplified or wrongly labbelled, things get missed. That "stay at home" mantra is a good example. People died unnessarily from the overly simplified message. It should of been made clear that it's "stay at home" unless you need urgent medical care.
 

Bruce Stephens

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
I'm seeing this "covid19" test in medical journals and scientific articles too!
I'm still not seeing the problem. Nobody's confused by this, are they?

This is surely just language changing in the way that languages do. At the beginning it was "coronavirus" or "the coronavirus" until it got a specific name, and now it's mostly "COVID-19", which people use to refer to the virus and the state of people who are infected by it (whether significantly sick or not), and usually context determines the specific meaning without much problem.
 

Burylancs

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
Britain’s early handling of the coronavirus pandemic was one of the worst public health failures in UK history, with ministers and scientists taking a “fatalistic” approach that exacerbated the death toll, a landmark inquiry has found.

“Groupthink”, evidence of British exceptionalism and a deliberately “slow and gradualist” approach meant the UK fared “significantly worse” than other countries, according to the 151-page “Coronavirus: lessons learned to date” report led by two former Conservative ministers.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ed-of-impact-on-uk-four-years-before-pandemic
The crisis exposed “major deficiencies in the machinery of government”, with public bodies unable to share vital information and scientific advice impaired by a lack of transparency, input from international experts and meaningful challenge.

Despite being one of the first countries to develop a test for Covid in January 2020, the UK “squandered” its lead and “converted it into one of permanent crisis”. The consequences were profound, the report says. “For a country with a world-class expertise in data analysis, to face the biggest health crisis in 100 years with virtually no data to analyse was an almost unimaginable setback.”


:(

And nobody has been sacked, Resigned or been taken out and shot. The press have got rid of it already.
 

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
I'm still not seeing the problem. Nobody's confused by this, are they?

This is surely just language changing in the way that languages do. At the beginning it was "coronavirus" or "the coronavirus" until it got a specific name, and now it's mostly "COVID-19", which people use to refer to the virus and the state of people who are infected by it (whether significantly sick or not), and usually context determines the specific meaning without much problem.
Hi Bruce, the problem is, all I stated was a fundmentally truthful statement about what someone in a national newspaper said and I end up getting sarky comments rather then factual challenges proving otherwise. What I said was not an opinion. It's not what I think. It's not my take on it. I didn't make the test. I didn't name the test, so I am not going to be challenged for it. It's got absolutely nothing to do with me. It is a simple fact. It was challenged as if it was me that was the problem. If you read the thread again you will see what I mean.

If the governement as part of their public message want to bundle all the terms into one that's up to them, all I am saying is there is no test for covid19 and anyobody in the press, journals, science papers (worth their salt that is) should know what the tests are for and should show this clearly.
 

Burylancs

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
Hi Bruce, the problem is, all I stated was a fundmentally truthful statement about what someone in a national newspaper said and I end up getting sarky comments rather then factual challenges proving otherwise. What I said was not an opinion. It's not what I think. It's not my take on it. I didn't make the test. I didn't name the test, so I am not going to be challenged for it. It's got absolutely nothing to do with me. It is a simple fact. It was challenged as if it was me that was the problem. If you read the thread again you will see what I mean.

If the governement as part of their public message want to bundle all the terms into one that's up to them, all I am saying is there is no test for covid19 and anyobody in the press, journals, science papers (worth their salt that is) should know what the tests are for and should show this clearly.
In much the same way you could say, I suppose, that there are no tests for diabetes.
 

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
In much the same way you could say, I suppose, that there are no tests for diabetes.
Hi @Burylancs

And we "diabetics" tend to get bundled into the "Diabetes" fits all phrase. I would also take issue with any Doctor, Scientist, publication etc not using the correct terminology here too. Type 1 is not the same thing as Type 2. If I saw anyone claiming otherwise for ease of use or to avoid confusing the public, I'd be questioning their credibility too. It's ok to use the word diabetes as a public message, but outside of that, people need to know the difference.
 

Burylancs

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
Hi @Burylancs

And we "diabetics" tend to get bundled into the "Diabetes" fits all phrase. I would also take issue with any Doctor, Scientist, publication etc not using the correct terminology here too. Type 1 is not the same thing as Type 2. If I saw anyone claiming otherwise for ease of use or to avoid confusing the public, I'd be questioning their credibility too. It's ok to use the word diabetes as a public message, but outside of that, people need to know the difference.

And yet the terms Type1 and Type 2 are only very young terms, adopted by WHO in 1985 I believe. Before that what we know as Type 1 was IDDM (Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus) or Juvenile Diabetes ( whatever age you were). Type 2 was NIDDM (Non Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus ) or Maturity Onset Diabetes. I had never heard of Tyoe 2 Diabetes when the Consultant diagnosed me with it in December 1992. It had always been 'Sugar Diabetes'. An echo of which name still lingers and confuses People. In 1985 the WHO did discuss separating the two conditions with what became 'Type 1' continuing as Diabetes and what became 'Type 2' being Cellulosis or some such. You still occasionally hear suggestions they should be separated. It might help with Type 2s not being treated as poor relations all the time.
 

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
And yet the terms Type1 and Type 2 are only very young terms, adopted by WHO in 1985 I believe. Before that what we know as Type 1 was IDDM (Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus) or Juvenile Diabetes ( whatever age you were). Type 2 was NIDDM (Non Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus ) or Maturity Onset Diabetes. I had never heard of Tyoe 2 Diabetes when the Consultant diagnosed me with it in December 1992. It had always been 'Sugar Diabetes'. An echo of which name still lingers and confuses People. In 1985 the WHO did discuss separating the two conditions with what became 'Type 1' continuing as Diabetes and what became 'Type 2' being Cellulosis or some such. You still occasionally hear suggestions they should be separated. It might help with Type 2s not being treated as poor relations all the time.
Interesting and succinct @Burylancs
 

everydayupsanddowns

Administrator
Staff member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
Hi Bruce, the problem is, all I stated was a fundmentally truthful statement about what someone in a national newspaper said and I end up getting sarky comments rather then factual challenges proving otherwise. What I said was not an opinion. It's not what I think. It's not my take on it. I didn't make the test. I didn't name the test, so I am not going to be challenged for it. It's got absolutely nothing to do with me. It is a simple fact. It was challenged as if it was me that was the problem. If you read the thread again you will see what I mean.

Sorry to read that you feel you have received sarcastic comments. I think perhaps that partly revolves around the phrasing and presentation rather than what you said? Something that the forum experiences often. Sometimes things aren’t read in the way that was intended.

Consider perhaps the possible differences in interpretation between someone posting:

’Despite being one of the first countries to develop a test for Covid in January 2020’

:rolleyes:

There is no test for covid.

or alternatively:
’Despite being one of the first countries to develop a test for Covid in January 2020’

Strictly speaking, of course, they should be talking about a test for the sarscov2 virus which can lead to Covid-19, since there isn’t a specific test for Covid-19 itself.

The first can be interpreted as “there is no test which is helpful in the context of the global pandemic” “testing is useless” or even “I don’t believe in testing”. Particularly with the rolleyes emoji?

The second makes it clearer that it is a technical issue about the language used around the nature of the tests that is your focus, rather than the testing itself?
 
Last edited:

Burylancs

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
Sorry to read that you feel you have received sarcastic comments. I think perhaps that partly revolves around the phrasing and presentation rather than what you said? Something that the forum experiences often. Sometimes things aren’t read in the way that was intended.

Consider perhaps the possible differences in interpretation between someone posting:



or alternatively:


The first can be interpreted as “there is no test which is helpful in the context of the global pandemic” “testing is useless” or even “I don’t believe in testing”. Particularly with the rolleyes emoji?

The second makes it clearer that it is a technical issue about the language used around the nature of the tests that is your focus, rather than the testing itself?
And of course we frequently hear that the Earth orbits the Sun. It doesn't. The Earth , the Sun and all the objects in the Solar System are in orbit around the Centre of Gravity ( barycentre) of the Solar System. Which just happens to lie 5000 miles off the centre of the Sun. Just saying. I'll get my tin helmet on and hide in the trenches, expecting to be shouted down like Amity Island.
 

Amity Island

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
Sorry to read that you feel you have received sarcastic comments. I think perhaps that partly revolves around the phrasing and presentation rather than what you said? Something that the forum experiences often. Sometimes things aren’t read in the way that was intended.

Consider perhaps the possible differences in interpretation between someone posting:



or alternatively:


The first can be interpreted as “there is no test which is helpful in the context of the global pandemic” “testing is useless” or even “I don’t believe in testing”. Particularly with the rolleyes emoji?

The second makes it clearer that it is a technical issue about the language used around the nature of the tests that is your focus, rather than the testing itself?
@everydayupsanddowns I didn't just "feel" that I received sarcastic comments, I did; and it all started with someone else jumping in to a question that was left for me.

If @Robin had done the right thing and let others reply for themselves (which I am quite capable of doing) to @Sally71 instead of jumping in with some sarcasm, this thread wouldn't have gone off topic and we wouldn't be having this conversation. I don't need a lesson in how to use emoji's or how to phrase my communications as there is nothing there to take offence from and as I said, I didn't even get the chance to answer the question raised.

I don't need to explain anything else. My comment wasn't aimed at a particular member of the forum (I don't use online forums to insult others), it was simply a general exasperation at the incredible level of ignorance in the media on what the tests are for.

Please can we let this go now? I've not done anything wrong.

Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top