I've been very positive about the UK's vaccine rollout, which has been outstanding.
But the successes this month only serve to throw into sharper relief the failures of last month, when a spineless got delated (again) taking the steps needed to avert catastrophe
The rolling 7 day average of cases in the UK has been halving about every two weeks since the peaked a few days after we, finally and belatedly, locked down in full on 5th January.

How many cases could have been averted if we had instead have locked down on 15th December?
Cases then, per @ganeshran , were running at average of 20k per day. Assuming same 2 week halving, we would have had:
10k per day around 29th Dec
5k per day around 12th Jan
2.5k per day around 26th Jan
Instead we had:
39k per day 29th Dec
56k per day 12th Jan
32k per day 26th Jan

40,000 people have died since 15th December, when I - and others - were urging the govt to cancel Christmas and warning not doing so would risk a preventable catastrophe.
Locking down then would not have saved all of them. But it would have saved a lot. Most likely tens of thousands of people.

A full Premier league stadium of people who died because the govt wouldn't listen to scientists and cancel Christmas, even with vaccines weeks away.
Most of those people will have been in the higher risk groups. Most of them, if there were still alive, would be vaccinated by now. But we can't bring them back.

The vaccination programme is a huge success. What preceded it was a huge and tragic failure.
Lets also not forget the role of parts of the media in egging on the govt to "defy scientists" and "save Christmas".

express.co.uk/news/uk/136234…

dailymail.co.uk/debate/article…
I remember as a child the Kings Cross fire. 31 people died. There were recriminations for years afterwards about the negligence and failures that led to these avoidable deaths.

More recently at Grenfell negligence led to a fire which killed 72
Since Christmas, we have had a death toll equivalent to 30 Kings Cross fires a day, every day.

Equivalent to 15 Grenfells a day, every day.

The nation was on fire and the government neglected to put it out.

To "save Christmas."
So, yes, I will cheer the vaccine success we are having, and for which our govt deserves due credit.

But I will not forget the colossal deriliction of duty which preceded it, and has left hundreds of thousands grieving for lost relatives who could and should have been saved.
Relatedly here’s a thread on what was done and when, and what was known and when

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Rob Ford

Rob Ford Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @robfordmancs

29 Jan
Universe brain incompetence right here
So today in EU vaccine response:
President of the most vaccine sceptical large member state cast doubt on vaccine approved by EU authorities.

Then EU accidentally publishes confidential contract with the vaccine maker potentially voiding the contract
Read 4 tweets
18 Jan
Excellent analysis as per usual from Stephen. One idea he raises here which I think is really worth pondering is that welfare cuts for 2020s Cons could become like immigration for 2000s/2010s Labour: an issue they can neither dismiss, tackle or find a way to avoid"
And for symmetrical reasons. For Labour, immigration controls were a policy the voters they were targeting strongly favoured, but that their MPs, activists and media supporters loathed.
Big welfare increases are like that for Cons now - the voters they've targeted and successfully won over in the "red wall" etc favour a stronger safety net. But many MPs, traditional activists, and Con media hate the idea.
Read 6 tweets
16 Jan
Netscape Navigator and AOL chat rooms. And MiniDisc.
Also the NeoGeo - a console of the same era as the Megadrive and SNES but twice as powerful but ten times as expensive. The games looked as good as the arcade games of the time but cost the equivalent of like £200 each in today’s money
I used to go to the local video game store just to gawk at the NeoGeo demo cabinet
Read 5 tweets
16 Jan
Quite a few people seem to misunderstand my point here. Let me clarify:

If you're an elected politician, let alone a former leader of a party, you should not endorse and amplify sentiments which frame your defeat by other elected politician in the language of coup & conspiracy
I don't particularly care about what Margolyes herself has to say, she's a private citizen she's free to take nonsensical position. It is Leanne Wood's endorsement I find troubling. Language *matters*. Respect for democratic outcomes *matters*. 2/?
"Miriam Margoyles is right" to say "There has been a right wing coup in this country."
That involves either bankrupting the meaning of the term coup (leaving you unable to use it correctly in future) or genuinely believing successive Con election victories amount to a "coup"
Read 11 tweets
5 Jan
I think Today producers, editors and presenters have some serious questions to answer about why they have today invited a discredited scientist with a repeated track record of making falsely dismissive claims on COVID threat to offer her views to the nation this morning
We know things are as bad as they have ever been. We know that ensuring compliance with yet another lockdown will be incredibly hard. How is it "public service journalism" to put on national radio crackpots selling people pie in the sky about how the threat is exaggerated?
There are literally thousands of scientists who could talk to citizens about the current pandemic situation. It is not "balance" to pick one with a demonstrated recent track record of getting things completely wrong. It is irresponsible.
Read 19 tweets
3 Jan
The cost-benefit on "shutting things with a vaccine literally being rolled out" is not the same as the cost-benefit on "shutting things with no idea when a vaccine will come, if ever." Can we please stop pretending the policy debate now is the same as then?
In the early stages of COVID, there was a reasonable arg to make that cases averted at very high cost were just cases delayed. The benefits of delay were therefore uncertain, reflecting our uncertainty about how treatments would evolve. That is no longer true.
For every infection in a high risk group which we avert in the next month or so, there is a high probability that said infection is then averted *forever* because the high risk indiv gets vaccinated. Therefore, restrictions have both a clear & obvious benefit and end point.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!