Northerner
Admin (Retired)
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
Britain’s testing and contact-tracing system is not fit for purpose and will not be able to keep coronavirus in check as other countries have done, according to an independent group of scientists.
The former government chief scientific adviser Sir David King, who now leads the Independent Sage group, is calling for a new approach, warning that the measures in place will not be enough to pick up 80% of the contacts of people with the virus, which they say is needed to prevent the infection rate rising.
“The government has placed huge emphasis on their test, track and trace system in recent weeks, even labelling it ‘world-beating’. It is clear from our research that this simply isn’t the case – indeed, the system as it stands is not fit for purpose,” King said.
“This is the critical moment for the government to act now or risk further spikes. We believe that a new approach is required, one that moves away from a centralised system that utilises a local-first approach. We are calling on the government to urgently rethink their course to ensure that we have a system in place that will help and not hinder the country’s recovery.”
www.theguardian.com
Not encouraging
It's always struck me that when the government say they are 'following the science' they mean the science that supports their political agenda. And when there is no science that supports that then they exclude the scientists from the press briefings so they can't be contradicted. The threat level is a good example, as far as I know it still hasn't been reduced from 4 as we were told it would need to before any relaxation of restrictions. Rewriting the past seems to be a pattern, from 'herd immunity' being promoted then denied, Cummings' Northern Odyssey using hidden clauses that were suddenly discovered, the threat level changing being paramount, 'R' coming down significantly. It is frankly ridiculous to say they did all the 'right things at the right time' - how, then, do they account for the terrible outcome? Perhaps if they had done the 'wrong things at the wrong time', as they imply other countries must have done, then we would be out the other side by now
The former government chief scientific adviser Sir David King, who now leads the Independent Sage group, is calling for a new approach, warning that the measures in place will not be enough to pick up 80% of the contacts of people with the virus, which they say is needed to prevent the infection rate rising.
“The government has placed huge emphasis on their test, track and trace system in recent weeks, even labelling it ‘world-beating’. It is clear from our research that this simply isn’t the case – indeed, the system as it stands is not fit for purpose,” King said.
“This is the critical moment for the government to act now or risk further spikes. We believe that a new approach is required, one that moves away from a centralised system that utilises a local-first approach. We are calling on the government to urgently rethink their course to ensure that we have a system in place that will help and not hinder the country’s recovery.”
England's test-and-trace system not fit for purpose, say scientists
Independent Sage calls for local-first approach, including support for those in isolation
www.theguardian.com
Not encouraging
It's always struck me that when the government say they are 'following the science' they mean the science that supports their political agenda. And when there is no science that supports that then they exclude the scientists from the press briefings so they can't be contradicted. The threat level is a good example, as far as I know it still hasn't been reduced from 4 as we were told it would need to before any relaxation of restrictions. Rewriting the past seems to be a pattern, from 'herd immunity' being promoted then denied, Cummings' Northern Odyssey using hidden clauses that were suddenly discovered, the threat level changing being paramount, 'R' coming down significantly. It is frankly ridiculous to say they did all the 'right things at the right time' - how, then, do they account for the terrible outcome? Perhaps if they had done the 'wrong things at the wrong time', as they imply other countries must have done, then we would be out the other side by now 
