Disastrously bad so-called "science" in the United Kingdom has caused tens of thousands of avoidable Covid-19 deaths in the UK

The background to this post is contained in a post on my Corona Shock blog: Disastrously bad so-called "science" at the World Health Organisation has caused over 1,300,000 avoidable deaths.

Disastrously bad so-called "science" at the World Health Organisation expressed in the International Health Regulations (2005) allowed the SARS-CoV-2 virus to spread freely internationally.

Without that failure at the WHO the Covid-19 pandemic would not have become established.

Without that disastrous failure at the WHO more than a million deaths from Covid-19 could have been (and should have been) avoided.

Do the failures by the World Health Organisation absolve UK scientists and politicians from blame for the tens of thousands of deaths in the United Kingdom from Covid-19?

I don't believe so.

The WHO failures allowed the pandemic to become established.

The UK scientists and politicians had a Duty of Care to protect the Public Health in the United Kingdom despite the existence of a pandemic.

To understand the criticism of UK scientific advisers that I seek to make in this post you need carefully to distinguish the Covid-19 pandemic from the Covid-19 epidemic in the United Kingdom. 

UK scientific advisers had no direct responsibility or ability to stop the Covid-19 pandemic.

UK scientific advisers, in my view, did have a direct responsibility, a Duty of Care, to protect the Public Health in the United Kingdom.

One part of that Duty of Care, in my view, was carefully to consider whether an epidemic of Covid-19 in the United Kingdom could be prevented.

My view is that the Covid-19 epidemic in the United Kingdom could have been prevented.

If the United Kingdom border had been closed on or around 31st January 2020 (with limited exceptions for essential deliveries of food etc), as outlined in June in this post: The United Kingdom's border should have been closed on 31st January 2020 entry of the SARS-CoV-2 virus into the United Kingdom would have been stopped.

If the SARS-CoV-2 had been stopped from entering the United Kingdom, Covid-19 infection in the UK would have been stopped and deaths from Covid-19 would not have occurred.

In other words, all, or essentially all, of the tens of thousands of Covid-19 deaths in the United Kingdom were avoidable.

Those tens of thousands of Covid-19 deaths could have been avoided by closing the UK Border (with tightly limited exceptions for essential food deliveries etc) on or around 31st January 2020.

In future posts I will seek to set out the reasons I see for the disastrously bad so-called "science" that has caused tens of thousands of avoidable deaths from Covid-19 by failing to secure a closure of the UK border on or around 31st January 2020.

In my view serious criticism can fairly be directed at

• Boris Johnson
• Chris Whitty
• Patrick Vallance
• The New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG)
• The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE)
  

among others.

I expect it to take me multiple posts to set out all the disastrous mistakes which have led to so many thousands of avoidable deaths in the UK from Covid-19.

If public protections in England against Covid-19 are removed for Christmas, is that lawful? Is it Gross Negligence Manslaughter? Is it murder?

As I write this early on 23rd November 2020, the media is full of stories that Boris Johnson is planning to remove or reduce public protections against Covid-19, in part so that the public in England can have a less abnormal Christmas. An announcement is expected in the House of Commons later today.

In this post I want to ask a basic question.

Is it lawful for Boris Johnson to remove or reduce public protections against Covid-19? 

Boris Johnson must know that removing or reducing public protections will result in an increase in Covid-19 infections. 

In turn, Boris Johnson must know that an increase in Covid-19 infections will cause an increase in Covid-19 deaths.

So, is it lawful for the Prime Minister to act in a way which he knows will cause deaths in the population of England?

If it's supposedly lawful, what is the reasoning that produces a conclusion that reducing public protections against Covid-19 with the effect of causing avoidable deaths is lawful?

If it's not lawful, what should it be called?

Might it be Gross Negligence Manslaughter?

Might it be Murder?

The infantile incompetence of Boris Johnson on Covid-19 will inflict decades of Boristerity on the United Kingdom

The fundamental mistakes on the Covid-19 epidemic in the United Kingdom made by Boris Johnson, including his failure to close the UK Border on or around 31st January 2020, have caused avoidable damage to the UK public finances to the tune of £100 billion.

Some suggest that the wasted money already exceeds £200 billion. And it's still going up.

This money will, eventually, have to be paid back.

The United Kingdom faces decades of Boristerity - austerity caused by the infantile incompetence of the United Kingdom's worst ever Prime Minister, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.

Think about it.

Is Boris Johnson going to announce measures on Covid-19 based on a false claim?

In my most recent post I showed that the number of cases of Covid-19 in England is doubling roughly every 14 days, not every 7 days as falsely claimed yesterday by Patrick Vallance.

See Did Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty lie to the public in their briefing yesterday?

Patrick Vallance hinted at 50,000 cases a day by mid October, if the false claim of a 7 day doubling time were to continue.

The Government's own data show that the Covid-19 epidemic is increasing but that it is doubling at a much slower rate - roughly every 14 days.

If the number of cases continues to double roughly every 14 days then we can expect around 19,000 cases per day in England in mid October, not the 50,000 cases publicised by Patrick Vallance.

It seems to me that Boris Johnson is likely later today to announce measures relating to Covid-19 based on a false claim.

For Boris Johnson to do so risks further undermining any remaining credibility that he may have.

Did Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty lie to the public in their briefing yesterday?

Yesterday, 21st September 2020, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Patrick Vallance and the Chief Medical Officer for England, Chris Whitty, gave a televised presentation on Covid-19.

A transcript of what they said is online here:

Chief Scientific Advisor and Chief Medical Officer briefing on coronavirus (COVID-19): 21 September 2020

It seems to me that Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty lied to the public about the Covid-19 epidemic in the United Kingdom.

Their claim, expressed by Patrick Vallance, was that the Covid-19 epidemic in England is doubling roughly every seven days.

Patrick Vallance said,

At the moment, we think that the epidemic is doubling roughly every seven days. It could be a little bit longer, maybe a little shorter, but let’s say roughly every seven days. If, and that’s quite a big if, but if that continues unabated and this grows, doubling every seven days, then what you see of course, let’s say that there were 5,000 today, it would be 10,000 next week, 20,000 the week after, 40,000 the week after. And you can see that by mid-October if that continued, you would end up with something like 50,000 cases in the middle of October per day.

Is it true that the epidemic is doubling "roughly every seven days"?

I don't think so.

The Government's own data shows that it is doubling roughly every 14 days.

For example, on the second slide shown at the presentation the rate of new cases per 100,000 of the population doubled roughly every 14 days.

The slides are online here:

Slides to accompany coronavirus press conference: 21 September 2020 

In the age group 20-29 the number of cases for 24th August to 30th August was about 31 (reading the graph by eye).

For the same age group for 7th to 13th September there were about 62 cases (again reading the graph by eye).

Similar increases can be seen in the other age groups.

If cases increase from 31 to 62 in two weeks that means that cases were doubling roughly every 14 days (not every 7 days as Patrick Vallance claimed).

Perhaps there is more recent data that shows the doubling time is getting shorter.

The most recent data that I can find is online here:

Cases in United Kingdom

The second graph on that page shows daily numbers of positive tests.

By mousing over individual dates you can see a number of positive tests for that date and the rolling 7-day average at that date. 

The graphs are in ongoing process of updating. The following description reflects the figures shown in the version I downloaded a little before 06:00 on 22nd September 2020.

There is no sign of doubling every seven days that I can see.

If we look at positive tests on individual days we see the following:

• On 18th September the number of cases was 4322 (an increase of 22% from 11th September)
• On 11th September the number of cases was 3539 (an increase of 82% from 4th September)
• On 4th September the number of cases was 1940 (an increase of 52% from 28th August)
  

If we look at the 7-day rolling average again there is no sign of doubling every 7 days:

• On 18th September the 7-day average was 3928 (an increase of 30% from 11th September)
• On 11th September the 7-day average was 3003 (an increase of 47% from 4th September)
• On 4th September the 7-day average was 2032 (an increase of 53% from 28th August)

On no date was there a 100% increase over the examined 7 days periods.

The highest increase was 82% from 4th September to 11th September.

But that was followed by a 22% increase from 11th September to 18th September.

So, even if it were true that cases were close to doubling every 7 days from 4th to 11th September, the figures on 18th September show that any such doubling had slowed markedly.

If the number of cases isn't doubling every 7 days (and hasn't been in the recent past) it can't "continue" to double at that rate.

It seems to me that Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty have seriously misled the public.

If they had data showing doubling every 7 days surely they would have shown it.

Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty should apologise for misleading the British public and provide a detailed explanation of why they did so.

 

 

 

Did Boris Johnson deliberately allow the SARS-CoV-2 virus to enter the United Kingdom unhindered?

One of the key questions that any inquiry, whether by the Police or otherwise, into the UK Government's management of the Covid-19 epidemic in the UK must examine is the question of whether entry of the SARS-CoV-2 virus into the United Kingdom was avoidable.

In other words, could some or all of the deaths from Covid-19 in the United Kingdom have been avoided.

If, as I assert, all Covid-19 deaths in the UK were avoidable (for example by closing the United Kingdom Border on 31st January 2020, The United Kingdom's border should have been closed on 31st January 2020 ), did those avoidable deaths happen by chance, by incompetence or by deliberate decision?

There is circumstantial evidence that Boris Johnson deliberately allowed the SARS-CoV-2 virus to enter the UK.

So what is the evidence?

A key date is 3rd February 2020.

In the minutes of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies of 3rd February 2020 (see Third SAGE meeting on Wuhan Coronavirus (WN-CoV), 3 February 2020 ) we read the following:

2. Only a month of additional preparation time for the NHS would be meaningful. It would also be meaningful if the outbreak were pushed out of usual winter respiratory season.

and

18. An extra month for the NHS and wider HMG to prepare for a WN-CoV epidemic – and to reduce the pressures arising from seasonal influenza – would offer a significant advantage.

and among the Action Points:

ACTION: SPI-M to consider whether the estimates on the impact of travel restrictions agreed by SAGE can be refined.

What do these bland comments mean?

SAGE is stating that a greater than 95% closure of the United Kingdom Border would allow around a month of preparation time for the National Health Service to make preparations for the expected further arrival of Covid-19 in the UK (the first confirmed cases of Covid-19 in the UK were confirmed on 31st January 2020).

The discussion of the effect of Border closures in a pandemic situation goes back to at least October 2005.

In UK INFLUENZA PANDEMIC CONTINGENCY PLAN  on page 21 (which is the 23rd page of the PDF document) we read:

In the event of a novel influenza virus causing significant outbreaks of
human illness elsewhere in the world, it is unlikely that the UK could
prevent importation (except by closing all borders); even a 99.9%
restriction of travel into the country would only be expected to delay
importation of the virus by up to two months.

On 3rd February 2020 SAGE is stating that a partial Border Closure would buy a month's preparation time for the National Health Service.

Imagine the importance of that. The NHS could have had another month to accumulate additional Personal Protective Equipment. The NHS could have worked out a better way to protect those in Care Homes who were most likely to die from Covid-19 if they contracted it.

If a partial UK Border Closure had been put in place immediately after the SAGE advice was given on 3rd February 2020, in all likelihood thousands of lives could have been saved.

What happened to the SAGE advice of 3rd February?

It seems likely that the SAGE advice that the UK Border be partially closed was communicated promptly to Boris Johnson.

In a speech made at Greenwich on the evening of 3rd February 2020, Boris Johnson stated the following ( Prime Minister Boris Johnson's speech in Greenwich ):

And in that context, we are starting to hear some bizarre autarkic rhetoric, when barriers are going up, and when there is a risk that new diseases such as coronavirus will trigger a panic and a desire for market segregation that go beyond what is medically rational to the point of doing real and unnecessary economic damage, then at that moment humanity needs some government somewhere that is willing at least to make the case powerfully for freedom of exchange, some country ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles and leap into the phone booth and emerge with its cloak flowing as the supercharged champion, of the right of the populations of the earth to buy and sell freely among each other.

And here in Greenwich in the first week of February 2020, I can tell you in all humility that the UK is ready for that role.”

Where did the supposed "bizarre autarkic rhetoric" come from?

Was this Boris Johnson's response to the SAGE advice given earlier that day that there should be partial UK Border Closure to allow the NHS an additional month to prepare for Covid-19?

Do these words demonstrate that Boris Johnson had refused to countenance any closure of the UK Border?

If they do, then Boris Johnson made a decision to allow UK residents to be exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus earlier than necessary, since a 95% Border Closure would have bought of the order of 1 extra month for the UK to prepare for a Covid-19 epidemic.

If, as I think highly likely, Boris Johnson decided to refuse ANY UK Border Closure (such as the 95% UK Border Closure implicit in the SAGE advice of 3rd February 2020), it follows that he also refused to countenance a complete Border Closure of the kind which would have avoided all Covid-19 deaths in the United Kingdom.

The optimal time to close the UK Border was 31st January 2020.

However, a prompt UK Border Closure on 3rd February 2020 would, in my assessment, have prevented all Covid-19 deaths in the United Kingdom.

It seems to me that there is a case urgently to investigate whether Boris Johnson refused on 3rd February 2020 to allow a UK Border Closure of any kind and whether that refusal caused all the deaths in the UK from Covid-19.

In other words it seems to me that there is an urgent need to establish whether a refusal by Boris Johnson to allow any level of UK Border Closure has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths in the United Kingdom.

The key role of air transport in spreading the SARS-CoV-2 virus

Air transport is a key factor in the rapid global spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

In the absence of air transport the spread of Covid-19 to the United Kingdom would have occurred later and Covid-19 might perhaps not (yet) have reached the United Kingdom at all.

It was the existence of air transport from China, whether by direct flight or indirect, that necessitated the closure of the UK Border on 31st January, to which I referred in an earlier post on this blog:
The United Kingdom's border should have been closed on 31st January 2020

I mention the key role of air transport in spreading Covid-19 infection because the closure of the UK Border on 31st January 2020 would inevitably have caused major disruption to air traffic to and from the United Kingdom.

On the principle that "the polluter pays" there is a form of natural justice that the adverse effects of the proposed closure of the UK Border would have fallen primarily on airlines.

The airlines were a key factor in introducing Covid-19 into the United Kingdom.

It would have been fair that the industry which was in course of damaging the public health in the United Kingdom should be first to pay the cost.

The United Kingdom's border should have been closed on 31st January 2020

For some time, the header of this blog has asserted that Boris Johnson has caused thousands of avoidable deaths due to Covid-19.

In this post I set out in broad outline the actions which Boris Johnson ought to have taken on 31st January 2020 in order to avoid almost all Covid-19 infections in the United Kingdom and, in my view, to avoid all Covid-19 deaths in the United Kingdom.

For centuries, quarantine has formed a basic tool to prevent the introduction of a dangerous infection to a susceptible population.

When quarantine was first practised there were no effective treatments for bubonic plague and other dangerous infections carried by traders or on traded goods.

Similarly, in January 2020 there were no specific effective treatments for a serious coronavirus infection such as  Covid-19.

So what should a competent Prime Minister have done in order to protect the United Kingdom's population?

Boris Johnson should have protected the lives of UK residents by closing the UK border on 31st January 2020.

That border closure should have applied to air, land and sea.

Ideally, in order to minimise disruption on the island of Ireland the UK border closure should have been agreed with the Government of Ireland.

A coordinated border closure which applied to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland would have kept the British Isles essentially free of Covid-19 infection and, in my view, avoided all Covid-19 deaths in the United Kingdom and in Ireland.

In light of the United Kingdom's dependence on imported food and other imported essentials it would have been necessary for the UK Government to allow a very limited exemption for those transporting supplies essential to the United Kingdom, for example drivers of food lorries and pilots of planes carrying genuinely essential supplies.

In parallel with those tightly limited exemptions, active steps should have been taken to minimise any potential transmission from, for example, lorry drivers to those unloading food lorries at supermarket depots.

Staff at supermarket food depots who might have come into close contact with lorry drivers importing food etc should have been advised to minimise contact with all drivers of lorries coming from abroad, to wear face masks and to minimise fomite-mediated spread by regular, thorough hand washing.

The possibility of creating an emergency trans-shipment depot in Kent should have been actively explored. That would have minimised the areas of the UK to which drivers importing food etc would have travelled to.

As of today, if the UK border had been closed on 31st January 2020 in excess of 40,000 avoidable Covid-19 deaths would have been avoided.

In my view Boris Johnson was grossly negligent in not taking steps to protect lives in the United Kingdom by closing the UK Border on 31st January 2020.

If I am correct that Boris Johnson was grossly negligent there are legal consequences which potentially follow, a matter which I will address in a future post.

The United Kingdom's Pandemic Influenza Strategy - links to documents

One of the potentially important pieces of background documentation which it is relevant to examine with respect to the failures by Boris Johnson and Chris Whitty to effectively protect the Public Health in the United Kingdom is the UK's Pandemic Influenza Strategy.

This blog post provides links to a number of documents  dating from 2011 and subsequently on the United Kingdom's preparedness (sic) for an Influenza Pandemic.

• 22nd March 2011 - The Scientific Summary of Pandemic Influenza and its Mitigation: Scientific Summary of Pandemic Influenza & its Mitigation  
• 10th November 2011 - UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011: UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011 
• 13th August 2014 - Pandemic Influenza Strategic Framework: Pandemic Influenza Strategic Framework  
• 13th August 2014 - Pandemic Influenza Response Plan 2014: Pandemic Influenza Response Plan 2014  
• 2017 Exercise Cygnus Report - The version currently publicly available links from an article in the Guardian on 7th May 2020: Revealed: the secret report that gave ministers warning of care home coronavirus crisis   The document as published by the Guardian is slightly redacted. Its content is not limited to issues which relate to care homes.

One or more future blog posts will examine the interpretation of these documents and what relevance they may have to the United Kingdom's response to the Covid-19 pandemic, including the failures of that response.

Boris Johnson's Let it in! Let it spread! Let it kill! Strategy

In an earlier post, Combatting Covid-19: The Keep it out! Kill it off! Strategy, I briefly set out what I believe would have been an effective strategy to combat the Covid-19 strategy.

That Keep it out! Kill it off! Strategy contrasts with the dangerous, indeed deadly, strategy adopted by Boris Johnson and his Government which, with variants during defined time periods, can be summarised as

• Let it in!
• Let it spread!
• Let it kill!

In my estimation at no point since the initial report to the World Health Organisation on 31st December 2019 of an outbreak of pneumonia of unknown cause has Boris Johnson applied an effective strategy against Covid-19.

With at most minimal intervention regarding flights direct from Wuhan the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been allowed to enter the United Kingdom without significant barriers having been put in place.

Apart from an initial period (termed the "contain phase" in the UK Government's paper of 3rd March 2020) no serious attempt has been made to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the United Kingdom.

It was madness to try to identify cases in the UK while allowing the SARS-CoV-2 virus freely to enter the United Kingdom.

It is like mopping up the floor surrounding an overflowing bath and leaving the taps running.

The inevitable effect of Boris Johnson allowing the SARS-CoV-2 virus to enter the United Kingdom with minimal or no hindrance, and making ineffectual attempts to stop the virus spreading, it became inevitable that Covid-19 would kill in the United Kingdom in large numbers.

Boris Johnson has caused thousands of avoidable Covid-19 deaths in the United Kingdom

The incompetence of Boris Johnson and those who surround him has caused thousands of avoidable  deaths in the United Kingdom due to Covid-19.

Boris Johnson and his Government have failed to observe one of the most fundamental Public Health protections when faced with an infectious disease for which there is no treatment.

Boris Johnson failed to keep people infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus away from the uninfected.

That failure manifested in two contexts:

• If the United Kingdom had closed its borders on 31st January 2020 the numbers in the UK infected with Covid-19 would have been tiny. Deaths to date from Covid-19 in the UK would have been tiny and possibly zero.
• After the failure by Boris Johnson and those surrounding him to close the UK borders on 31st January 2020, the National Health Services in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland failed to take effective steps to keep Covid-19 infections in most hospitals as close to zero as possible.

On 31st January 2020 there were very few Covid-19 cases in the United Kingdom (some, in all likelihood, undiagnosed). The vast majority of Covid-19 cases were abroad.

On 31st January 2020 I believe that there was sufficient evidence of the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic to justify the UK Government closing the borders.

That closure of the UK borders would, in my estimation, have been immediately achievable by virtue of powers that the UK Government has by virtue of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

A closure of the UK borders on 31st January 2020 would have been for an initial period of 7 days, by virtue of the effect of Section 27(1) of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which requires that Regulations made under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 must be laid before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable and lapse after 7 days in the event that the Regulations are not approved by a resolution passed by each House of Parliament.

Boris Johnson's failure to close the UK borders continued for weeks, despite the growing evidence of the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Boris Johnson's Covid-19 strategy is dangerously incoherent

The United Kingdom is currently in an established pattern where hundreds of people are dying each day of Covid-19.

The overwhelming majority of those deaths have been avoidable.

Had Boris Johnson implemented a "Keep it out! Kill it off! Strategy" I believe Covid-19 daily deaths in the United Kingdom would likely have been in single figures or otherwise far lower than the current appalling number of daily deaths.

The appalling carnage which follows from Boris Johnson's failure to apply a "Keep it out! Kill it off! Strategy" at the right time cannot be undone. (I'll turn to the need for a "Take Back Control Strategy" in a future post.)


In this post I attempt to explain why Boris Johnson's policy on Covid-19 is dangerously incoherent and can be expected to cause yet more avoidable deaths.

Put simply, there are two mutually inconsistent elements to the Johnson policy:

• Reduce or stop physical mixing (the "Stay at home" policy)
• Allow physical mixing to continue

The "Stay at home" policy greatly limits the physical contact among many UK residents. Properly applied that would reduce the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

At the same time (and for readily understandable reasons) hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of UK residents are still mixing on a daily basis, for example by going to work, shopping for food, going on the London Underground or other public transport.

Such (essential) activities aid the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

So, we have two contradictory policies being applied at the same time, one aiming to stop the spread of Covid-19 and the other assisting the spread of Covid-19.

The chance of two such contradictory policies achieving timely control of the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is zero!

The Government must urgently introduce measures progressively to reduce the risk of the essential activities currently allowed in the UK assisting further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

One such measure is the use of face masks.

A Government recommendation for the routine use of face masks in settings where physical distancing is impractical is essential.

We know that the SARS-Cov-2 virus is spread by droplets and other tiny particles expelled from the respiratory tract of an individual with Covid-19.

Face masks worn by infected individuals reduce or eliminate the introduction of infective particles into the environment.

Face masks worn by uninfected individuals reduce or eliminate the inhalation of infective particles.

The effectiveness of face masks depends on a number of factors, for example, the type of mask, how well it fits and how it is removed.

I would like to see supermarkets routinely issuing face masks to customers before they enter the supermarket. (Of course, individuals would need to understand how to remove a face mask safely and be provided with a means to dispose of used masks.)

There is no single measure which can reduce spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus to zero during essential activities.

There is no way to reduce physical mixing to zero among those engaged in essential activities.

The Government must urgently examine how to reduce spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among those who continue physical mixing.

Combatting Covid-19: The Keep it out! Kill it off! Strategy

The fundamental failure of Boris Johnson, his Ministers and his advisers has been the failure to implement the Keep it out! Kill it off! Strategy at a time when it was possible.

In the absence of an effective vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus the Keep it out! Kill it off! Strategy was the only approach available to the UK Government which would effectively protect UK citizens and residents.

In failing to implement the Keep it out! Kill it off! Strategy at the right time, Boris Johnson, his Ministers and his advisers have, in my view, caused thousands of avoidable deaths in the United Kingdom from Covid-19.

The Keep it out! Kill it off! Strategy has two basic components:

• Close the United Kingdom border to incoming traffic
• Find every case that has already entered the country and quarantine infected and infective individuals

In future posts I will elaborate on how each of the above two points may be modified to accomodate practical issues such as ensuring the continuing importation of food.

If Boris Johnson had implemented the Keep it out! Kill it off! strategy at the right time, UK residents would have been spared the current (partial) lockdown, thousands of deaths would have been avoided and the cost to the Treasury would have been much less than the costs to the Treasury of Boris Johnson's half-baked (and dangerous) "policy".

It seems likely to me that Governments around the world will seriously consider having the Keep it out! Kill it off! Strategy as part of their contingency plans for future possible pandemics.

Schools should be closed NOW!

Schools across the United Kingdom should be closed now!

In fact, they should have been closed last week or the week before.

Boris Johnson and his advisers have been persistently reluctant to close schools.

In my opinion that refusal is based on a misunderstanding of the modelling of the epidemic.

Why should schools be closed now?

We know that Coronavirus cases double every 3-5 days. Every week the cases increase by 3-fold or 4-fold.

If schools had been closed a week ago, the number of infected children coming into contact with grandparents would be half or less of the number if schools were closed today.

Next week the number of infected children coming into close contact with grandparents will be 3 or 4 times as large compared to a comprehensive closure of schools today.

Similarly, the number of NHS staff who would have had to leave work last week would have been a problem but as the numbers of Coronavirus cases in hospital grows, the effect in hospitals of each missing parent is greater than it was a week ago.

By postponing school closures Boris Johnson and his advisers have exposed more elderly to the disease and caused a larger than necessary effect on hospital staff.

Too little! Too late!

This is an example of Boris Johnson's delays in dealing with the Coronavirus causing an increase in avoidable deaths, albeit in this case likely a fairly minor one.

Three new blogs on the Coronavirus epidemic

Today I'm starting three new blogs relating to the Coronavirus epidemic.

The first blog, "Surviving Coronavirus" aims to focus on practical questions about how to stay safe and stay alive in a situation of radical uncertainty.

This second blog focusses on bigger picture issues relating to how Boris Johnson and those advising him have handled (and are handling) the Coronavirus epidemic.

I have grave concerns about the competence and honesty of Boris Johnson and his advisers.

The third blog is called "Corona Shock" and attempts to scratch the surface of understanding the profound, indeed revolutionary, impact of the Coronavirus epidemic on life across the planet.