Now, I am at last ready to give Public Health England a kicking.
We actually need to ignore them on a particular issue, and do the exact opposite, and here is why.
We actually need to ignore them on a particular issue, and do the exact opposite, and here is why.
As you recall, we looked at why PHE were 100% wrong in their obviously-wrong, pitifully weasel-worded guidance that was immediately disproved by reading the references that they themselves provided.
At the time, I felt sorry for them. I assumed they were rushing around, trying to help people.
I assumed the recommendation to do CPR without putting PPE was simply an oversight, and they hadn't had *time* to correct it.
I assumed the recommendation to do CPR without putting PPE was simply an oversight, and they hadn't had *time* to correct it.
Now I see, in this email from the President of the Royal College of Physicians, that my assumption was wrong.
"Much toing and froing" ...?
Should have been a single "to":
"Oi mate, there's an error in your guideline, please fix. People are interpreting it as CPR is not aerosol-generating. Please edit to say 'is' aerosol-generating"
And a single "fro":
"OK done cheers"
Should have been a single "to":
"Oi mate, there's an error in your guideline, please fix. People are interpreting it as CPR is not aerosol-generating. Please edit to say 'is' aerosol-generating"
And a single "fro":
"OK done cheers"
Now, it emerges that PHE are actually arguing back. With more than just
"Err... sorry Bob the web guy isn't here today, he is ventilated. Can it wait till next week?"
(which is the only excuse I would accept)
They are actually trying to argue the science?!?!?!
"Err... sorry Bob the web guy isn't here today, he is ventilated. Can it wait till next week?"
(which is the only excuse I would accept)
They are actually trying to argue the science?!?!?!
Well, here is what we do in science, which may be a new concept to PHE.
It's called peer review. If someone wants to make a claim, they
(1) Say who they are, and
(2) Say why, and
(3) Answer peer review
It's called peer review. If someone wants to make a claim, they
(1) Say who they are, and
(2) Say why, and
(3) Answer peer review
They've done (2)
Now they must do (1) and (3).
Until they do that, *please* everyone ignore PHE on this point.
Follow the advice of Resus Council, Roy Coll Phys, and basically anyone else with an IQ over 50.
Now they must do (1) and (3).
Until they do that, *please* everyone ignore PHE on this point.
Follow the advice of Resus Council, Roy Coll Phys, and basically anyone else with an IQ over 50.
Recommendations from anonymous people don't count, I would argue.
Have you come across any person with a name that agrees with PHE on this?
Have you come across any person with a name that agrees with PHE on this?
Sorry some people worry I was just stating my opinion. I wasn't. The thread linked above takes you through the science to which the PHE refers. It's not complex.
Here is that thread again. Please follow if unsure.
Here is that thread again. Please follow if unsure.
