Hi, Kit! I was one of the consultants investigating the first known case in a UK resident - a man who had been on a conference in (I think from memory it was Taiwan), and who had a busy social life. It was clear, from following his secondary and tertiary cases, and their levels of contact, that many had been infected by sharing an indoor space. It was incredibly unlikely that large droplets would have been involved. We looked at spread from people on different parts of a restaurant, and the airflow. I had to stop work for a month or so in February, so was not involved I writing this up. But - if we didn't already know that transmission was mostly or at least frequently airborne from overseas data, we had no excuse for not being confident of this by early February 2020.
It's pretty clear that by framing the testimony in this way they are looking to try and absolve themselves from legal responsibility for disability and death. It's frankly absolutely disgraceful that we're not seeing any really honest reflection on what really happened. Just a series of people trying to cover their arses or protect from wider judgement of institutional failing.
Absolutely right! 'There is substantial evidence that high grade FFP3 respirators can provide up to 100% protection in the ward, whilst staff wearing standard issue surgical masks face a significantly increased risk of catching COVID.'👏🌬️@Kit_Yates_Maths @trishgreenhalgh
Somebody needs to be asked why we were all sanitising our hands and trolley handles before entering our highly regulated supermarkets UNMASKED long after it was known that COVID-19 was airborne. Of course, the sanitising and regulating were good but the lack of any kind of mask for the general public was presumably down to lack of availability. The government and those charged with public health protection should have told us this though, so we could make appropriate arrangements for more vulnerable friends and family.
People in positions of power take all the upside and none of the downside.
We have built a world without consequence.
I have a letter written by the Director of Nursing of an NHS Trust apologising to a patient for a nosocomial infection incident in June 2020, to which is attached the CQC Inadequate rating of 4 August 2020 and the COVID-19: Infection and Prevention Control Guidance, Version 3, 18 May 2020 whose front pages highlight the main changes to include
"3. Transmission characteristics and principles of infection prevention and control, section 3
4. Reducing the risk of transmission of COVID-19 in the hospital setting' (addition of
clarifying text throughout based on recommendations from the Environmental Subgroup
of SAGE, supported by the Healthcare Onset Covid-19 Infection (HOCI) Working Group,
plus addition of section 4.2 on positive pressure rooms).
5. COVID-19 personal protective equipment (PPE), section 8.1"
"2.1 Introduction
The transmission of COVID-19 is thought to occur mainly through respiratory droplets
generated by coughing and sneezing, and through contact with contaminated surfaces.
The predominant modes of transmission are assumed to be droplet and contact. This is
consistent with a recent review of modes of transmission of COVID-19 by the World
Health Organization (WHO)."
If they were across the detail, like I was and many others, they would have known it was not necessary to depend on the WHO.
"3.1 Routes of transmission
Infection control advice is based on the reasonable assumption that the transmission
characteristics of COVID-19 are similar to those of the 2003 SARS-CoV outbreak.
The transmission of COVID-19 is thought to occur mainly through respiratory droplets
generated by coughing and sneezing, and through contact with contaminated surfaces.
The predominant modes of transmission are assumed to be droplet and contact."
(Had they not yet figured out why SARS CoV-2 got here and SARS CoV-1 didn't?
And Lidia Morawska's "Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2: The world should face the reality" was Accepted 7 April 2020 Available online 10 April 2020 Environment International 139 (2020)
While Prof Y. Doyle's testimony of 2 Nov 2023 suggests based on the sheer number of infections resulting from 5 introductions to the country that this was understood to be highly likely)
"3.2 Incubation and infectious period.
The incubation period is from 1 to 14 days (median 5 days). Assessment of the clinical
and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 cases suggests that, similar to SARS,
most patients will not be infectious until the onset of symptoms."
(By the time this was published ANYBODY working in this field should have known that was not the case. Furthermore Prof Y. Doyle's testimony on 2 Nov 2023 suggested it was already a serious consideration by PHE late Jan 2020)
"5.11 Best practice in use of PPE and hand hygiene
COVID19 is no longer categorised as a high consequence infectious disease and
therefore enhanced PPE is not recommended.
Section 8.1 was not included but a detailed Appendix whose purpose was
"to highlight the sessional use and reuse of PPE when there are
severe shortages of supply."
It would be interesting to hear how these geniuses would handle the situation again if given the opportunity for a re-run with the benefit of hindsight. Remember that many are still in role and some have been promoted since then, not just gonged.
It seems that Dr Lisa Ritchie, who chaired the IPC cell is still of the opinion, as under inquiry oath was seen to discuss, (with infamously long pause) that it's still droplet and not aerosol. See X.com @_CatintheHat thread Oct 6 "COVID INQUIRY".
I was shown how to do and doff my ffp3, so in practice their comments are of lower merit without proving people did not know how to do these things, even if they weren't recorded as having employer delivered training.
The IPCC cell is not responsible for health and safety, the HSE is. The IPCC cell overstepped and offered advice that was inconsistent with aerosol spread.
Just back from my Covid and flu jabs at the surgery. In eyeline as I sat in the chair was an NHS poster saying infections pass through touch, surfaces etc
Hi, Kit! I was one of the consultants investigating the first known case in a UK resident - a man who had been on a conference in (I think from memory it was Taiwan), and who had a busy social life. It was clear, from following his secondary and tertiary cases, and their levels of contact, that many had been infected by sharing an indoor space. It was incredibly unlikely that large droplets would have been involved. We looked at spread from people on different parts of a restaurant, and the airflow. I had to stop work for a month or so in February, so was not involved I writing this up. But - if we didn't already know that transmission was mostly or at least frequently airborne from overseas data, we had no excuse for not being confident of this by early February 2020.
Interesting!
What happened to the precautionary principle doc – did you blokes (or your bosses) ever use/invoke that term?
I mean, a totally new disease, about which we knew virtually nothing … as my mum would say ‘better to be on the safe side’.
It's pretty clear that by framing the testimony in this way they are looking to try and absolve themselves from legal responsibility for disability and death. It's frankly absolutely disgraceful that we're not seeing any really honest reflection on what really happened. Just a series of people trying to cover their arses or protect from wider judgement of institutional failing.
Absolutely right! 'There is substantial evidence that high grade FFP3 respirators can provide up to 100% protection in the ward, whilst staff wearing standard issue surgical masks face a significantly increased risk of catching COVID.'👏🌬️@Kit_Yates_Maths @trishgreenhalgh
https://open.substack.com/pub/kityates/p/is-the-covid-inquiry-about-learning?r=cwb8u&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Somebody needs to be asked why we were all sanitising our hands and trolley handles before entering our highly regulated supermarkets UNMASKED long after it was known that COVID-19 was airborne. Of course, the sanitising and regulating were good but the lack of any kind of mask for the general public was presumably down to lack of availability. The government and those charged with public health protection should have told us this though, so we could make appropriate arrangements for more vulnerable friends and family.
People in positions of power take all the upside and none of the downside.
We have built a world without consequence.
I have a letter written by the Director of Nursing of an NHS Trust apologising to a patient for a nosocomial infection incident in June 2020, to which is attached the CQC Inadequate rating of 4 August 2020 and the COVID-19: Infection and Prevention Control Guidance, Version 3, 18 May 2020 whose front pages highlight the main changes to include
"3. Transmission characteristics and principles of infection prevention and control, section 3
4. Reducing the risk of transmission of COVID-19 in the hospital setting' (addition of
clarifying text throughout based on recommendations from the Environmental Subgroup
of SAGE, supported by the Healthcare Onset Covid-19 Infection (HOCI) Working Group,
plus addition of section 4.2 on positive pressure rooms).
5. COVID-19 personal protective equipment (PPE), section 8.1"
"2.1 Introduction
The transmission of COVID-19 is thought to occur mainly through respiratory droplets
generated by coughing and sneezing, and through contact with contaminated surfaces.
The predominant modes of transmission are assumed to be droplet and contact. This is
consistent with a recent review of modes of transmission of COVID-19 by the World
Health Organization (WHO)."
If they were across the detail, like I was and many others, they would have known it was not necessary to depend on the WHO.
"3.1 Routes of transmission
Infection control advice is based on the reasonable assumption that the transmission
characteristics of COVID-19 are similar to those of the 2003 SARS-CoV outbreak.
The transmission of COVID-19 is thought to occur mainly through respiratory droplets
generated by coughing and sneezing, and through contact with contaminated surfaces.
The predominant modes of transmission are assumed to be droplet and contact."
(Had they not yet figured out why SARS CoV-2 got here and SARS CoV-1 didn't?
And Lidia Morawska's "Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2: The world should face the reality" was Accepted 7 April 2020 Available online 10 April 2020 Environment International 139 (2020)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105730.
While Prof Y. Doyle's testimony of 2 Nov 2023 suggests based on the sheer number of infections resulting from 5 introductions to the country that this was understood to be highly likely)
"3.2 Incubation and infectious period.
The incubation period is from 1 to 14 days (median 5 days). Assessment of the clinical
and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 cases suggests that, similar to SARS,
most patients will not be infectious until the onset of symptoms."
(By the time this was published ANYBODY working in this field should have known that was not the case. Furthermore Prof Y. Doyle's testimony on 2 Nov 2023 suggested it was already a serious consideration by PHE late Jan 2020)
"5.11 Best practice in use of PPE and hand hygiene
COVID19 is no longer categorised as a high consequence infectious disease and
therefore enhanced PPE is not recommended.
Section 8.1 was not included but a detailed Appendix whose purpose was
"to highlight the sessional use and reuse of PPE when there are
severe shortages of supply."
It would be interesting to hear how these geniuses would handle the situation again if given the opportunity for a re-run with the benefit of hindsight. Remember that many are still in role and some have been promoted since then, not just gonged.
It seems that Dr Lisa Ritchie, who chaired the IPC cell is still of the opinion, as under inquiry oath was seen to discuss, (with infamously long pause) that it's still droplet and not aerosol. See X.com @_CatintheHat thread Oct 6 "COVID INQUIRY".
I was shown how to do and doff my ffp3, so in practice their comments are of lower merit without proving people did not know how to do these things, even if they weren't recorded as having employer delivered training.
*don
The IPCC cell is not responsible for health and safety, the HSE is. The IPCC cell overstepped and offered advice that was inconsistent with aerosol spread.
Just back from my Covid and flu jabs at the surgery. In eyeline as I sat in the chair was an NHS poster saying infections pass through touch, surfaces etc
Time was when being a professor meant something, brought some respect , these people have well and truely trashed that. Shame on them.
#3tablets
Secondary bacterial pneumonia
https://x.com/Jikkyleaks/status/1658949095883689985?t=t9SxgDf--FOKudo7Wdo0iQ&s=19