Media Coverage of COVID -19

[yorksrob]

Only because in my opinion there's an element of "fairness" around a national lockdown, and those in the shielding category have already had it the worst so far.

In addition, the challenges of ensuring those who are shielding are also shielding from the rest of their household who aren't just "not shielding", but also now free of lockdown restrictions (thus free to spread infection back to the shielding person) would make shielding impossible to be carried out effectively. (Unless the proposal is either a) to move all vulnerable people into a quarantine facility or b) ensure that any household with a vulnerable person also needs to shield.) Which is why I suspect it has to be done in tandem with less freedoms for everyone (which explains why at present shielding of CEV people is only a requirement in Tier 4 areas).

COVID is an unfair condition.

I'm of the opinion that those not at highest risk need to be keeping the economy ticking over for all of our sakes, whilst those that need to, shield.

I've said previously that some assistance could be provided to help younger people in multi-generational households to move out, maybe temporarily (there must be a lot of empty hotel accommodation around at the moment). It goes without saying that if they did find themselves living with someone shielding, they would be shielding themselves.

On another matter, this has just turned up on the BBC website:

Covid rule-breakers 'have blood on their hands'

An intensive care doctor tells BBC Radio 5 Live the rise in cases is down to people not social distancing.

www.bbc.co.uk

According to Hugh Montgomery - an intensive care doctor:

"it was wrong to blame the surge in cases and deaths on the new variant of coronavirus, which was only "slightly" more transmissible and caused the same symptoms.
"It is making me actually very angry now that people are laying the blame on the virus, and it is not the virus, it is people, people are not washing their hands, they are not wearing their masks,"

On the one hand we have a new more transmissable strain that is overtaking the country. On the other, it's down to people not following the rules and stopping doing the things they've been doing for the past nine months.

From a personal point of view, I find it very hard to believe that behavioural issues alone have caused the surge in cases sweeping in from the South East. Has everyone suddenly decided to go out and have a party this Xmas ?

 

[MikeWM]

Here's an interesting and important story from the Mail.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...tired-NHS-workers-volunteered-given-jobs.html

Red tape blamed for only 5,000 of the 40,000 retired NHS workers who volunteered to return to fight Covid being given jobs

Retired NHS workers were prevented from returning to the front line to help the fight against Covid this year because of red tape and excessive bureaucracy.

Medics were required to provide 21 documents to support their application to volunteer, which even included evidence of Prevent Radicalisation training.

More than 40,000 doctors and nurses applied to return to the NHS to help with the pandemic, but only 5,000 had been given jobs by July.

So it *isn't* that we don't have the emergency staff to temporarily expand NHS capacity, but instead there clearly isn't the political will to make it happen.

Why?

 

[Laryk]

I've said previously that some assistance could be provided to help younger people in multi-generational households to move out, maybe temporarily (there must be a lot of empty hotel accommodation around at the moment). It goes without saying that if they did find themselves living with someone shielding, they would be shielding themselves.

First proposal seems to be a non-starter given the amount of vulnerable people. Is it possible to get an idea for how many households would need to be split apart? It's not just a case of younger people vs elderly either. The 15m vulnerable will be a broad spectrum of ages.

Second proposal, same issue with scale - except it goes back to my previous point of if you have that many people shielding, in addition now to the whole household, the argument over lockdown vs "enhanced shielding" becomes moot given the number of households that will have vulnerable people in!

I'm of the opinion that those not at highest risk need to be keeping the economy ticking over for all of our sakes, whilst those that need to, shield.

This is already the case - during lockdown the advice was to continue working. The economy suffered, many people were furloughed, yes. Hospitality and retail has been hit particularly hard. But how much would it have helped if 15m (with our without the rest of their household included) had been out of work shielding since march?

 

[Yew]

First proposal seems to be a non-starter given the amount of vulnerable people. Is it possible to get an idea for how many households would need to be split apart? It's not just a case of younger people vs elderly either. The 15m vulnerable will be a broad spectrum of ages.

Second proposal, same issue with scale - except it goes back to my previous point of if you have that many people shielding, in addition now to the whole household, the argument over lockdown vs "enhanced shielding" becomes moot given the number of households that will have vulnerable people in!


This is already the case - during lockdown the advice was to continue working. The economy suffered, many people were furloughed, yes. Hospitality and retail has been hit particularly hard. But how much would it have helped if 15m (with our without the rest of their household included) had been out of work shielding since march?

Presumably, it would have been 1/4 as bad.

 

[Laryk]

Presumably, it would have been 1/4 as bad.

How so? Because it's 1/4 people shielding instead of the rest of the population?

The rest of the population haven't been shielding, though. Shielding is a much more restrictive measure, especially compared to the tiers we have "enjoyed".
If you are shielding you cannot go to work.
To shield 15m+ would be a lot harder on the economy than what we have now in my opinion.

 

[yorksrob]

First proposal seems to be a non-starter given the amount of vulnerable people. Is it possible to get an idea for how many households would need to be split apart? It's not just a case of younger people vs elderly either. The 15m vulnerable will be a broad spectrum of ages.

Second proposal, same issue with scale - except it goes back to my previous point of if you have that many people shielding, in addition now to the whole household, the argument over lockdown vs "enhanced shielding" becomes moot given the number of households that will have vulnerable people in!


This is already the case - during lockdown the advice was to continue working. The economy suffered, many people were furloughed, yes. Hospitality and retail has been hit particularly hard. But how much would it have helped if 15m (with our without the rest of their household included) had been out of work shielding since march?

We're not talking about 15m people shielding since March, we're talking about during the current winter surge whilst the vaccine is rolled out to them.

The majority of households in this country are still the nuclear family, with working age parents and children.

 

[Laryk]

Here's an interesting and important story from the Mail.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...tired-NHS-workers-volunteered-given-jobs.html



So it *isn't* that we don't have the emergency staff to temporarily expand NHS capacity, but instead there clearly isn't the political will to make it happen.

Why?

Because the staff required right now are ICU staff, not retired GP's or gastroenterologists? It says so in the article, if you ignore the usual anti-red tape stuff.

 

[Yew]

If you are shielding you cannot go to work.

If you work in hospitality you cannot go to work as the government has forced your workplace to close.
If you work in an office and can work from home, you cannot go to work.

 

[DustyBin]

Absolutely. When you look at the numbers spent on the COVID response and short-term mitigation measures, we could actually have had our 'world class' NHS set up for decades to come. But instead, eye watering sums have disappeared into thin air, and the NHS' struggles will be a political features for many years - even decades - to come.

As you say, nobody in the media, government or general population seem to be asking these questions.

This is one of the biggest tragedies of the whole situation. We’ve seen what is in effect the biggest public spending spree in living memory (in history?) and what will we have to show for it at the end? Nothing....

I see that nobody has really engaged with my initial post in this thread where I quoted the predictions of several forum members who felt back in the summer that there would be no second wave. Oh and on other threads that London had achieved herd immunity back in June. Well, there was one post, that asked me not to use the terms ‘second wave’ or ‘herd immunity’.

The thing is nobody, not even the experts, identified this as a seasonal respiratory virus which seems incredible with hindsight. I know a GP who was (and is) on the frontline out in the community dealing with this and other illnesses and a few months ago he was confident we’d took the ‘big hit’ and that there would be no second wave. He’s obviously backtracked on this but the point again is the seasonal nature of the virus wasn’t appreciated. It’s clear now that without immunity via natural means or a vaccine we’ll see a ‘wave’ every winter.

Only because in my opinion there's an element of "fairness" around a national lockdown, and those in the shielding category have already had it the worst so far.

In addition, the challenges of ensuring those who are shielding are also shielding from the rest of their household who aren't just "not shielding", but also now free of lockdown restrictions (thus free to spread infection back to the shielding person) would make shielding impossible to be carried out effectively. (Unless the proposal is either a) to move all vulnerable people into a quarantine facility or b) ensure that any household with a vulnerable person also needs to shield.) Which is why I suspect it has to be done in tandem with less freedoms for everyone (which explains why at present shielding of CEV people is only a requirement in Tier 4 areas).

I’m sorry but fairness shouldn’t come into it. It’s not fair to expect the non-vulnerable to sacrifice their jobs and incomes and lose their homes etc. just so the vulnerable don’t feel ‘persecuted’. Because this is what is happening. People have lost their incomes and are running out of mortgage breaks etc. and are defaulting on payments. Some people will lose everything because of these lockdowns. Then there is the general effect this is having on mental and physical health, which nobody seems to care about. Add to all of this the fact that these restrictions and lockdowns are ruining the economy and everybody is going to suffer in the end, vulnerable and non-vulnerable alike. At least things will be fair in that regard!

COVID is an unfair condition.

I'm of the opinion that those not at highest risk need to be keeping the economy ticking over for all of our sakes, whilst those that need to, shield.

I've said previously that some assistance could be provided to help younger people in multi-generational households to move out, maybe temporarily (there must be a lot of empty hotel accommodation around at the moment). It goes without saying that if they did find themselves living with someone shielding, they would be shielding themselves.

Agreed, given what we’ve spent creating the current mess, the possibilities are endless!

 

[Darandio]

Because the staff required right now are ICU staff, not retired GP's or gastroenterologists? It says so in the article, if you ignore the usual anti-red tape stuff.

But it's not just ICU staff needed. There is a big push for thousands of people around the country to give vaccines to those who need it, there are thousands of retired staff who have given vaccines for years and are ready and willing to return on a temporary basis to do this, they are being blocked from doing so.

 

[DustyBin]

First proposal seems to be a non-starter given the amount of vulnerable people. Is it possible to get an idea for how many households would need to be split apart? It's not just a case of younger people vs elderly either. The 15m vulnerable will be a broad spectrum of ages.

Genuine question - do we really need to shield 15m people though? Why not just the most vulnerable who disproportionately contribute to the number of hospitalisations and deaths?

 

[initiation]

The 15m vulnerable will be a broad spectrum of ages

Where does 15m come from? In England, 2.2million people were identified as being clinically extremely vulnerable and should shield. A few hundred thousand more in Scotland/Wales/N.Ireland.

63% of those shielding are over the age of 60. Only 22% were under the age of 50.

Only 28% of these, 628k people, were working prior to Covid. Around a third of this group is working from home. For reference around 3 million people work in hospitality, most of which has been shut down.

Only 330k of those shielding lived with children.

Stats from these links:

Coronavirus and shielding of clinically extremely vulnerable people in England - Office for National Statistics

Clinically extremely vulnerable people (the shielding population) in England during the coronavirus pandemic, their behaviours, mental and physical well-being.

www.ons.gov.uk

Coronavirus and shielding of clinically extremely vulnerable people in England - Office for National Statistics

Clinically extremely vulnerable people (the shielding population) in England during the coronavirus pandemic, their behaviours, mental and physical well-being.

www.ons.gov.uk

The argument that targeted shielding would basically be the same as a lockdown is not true.

 

[Richard Scott]

How so? Because it's 1/4 people shielding instead of the rest of the population?

The rest of the population haven't been shielding, though. Shielding is a much more restrictive measure, especially compared to the tiers we have "enjoyed".
If you are shielding you cannot go to work.
To shield 15m+ would be a lot harder on the economy than what we have now in my opinion.

Can I ask where 15million is coming from, I'm sure that back in March far fewer people than this were sent letters from their doctor instructing them to be careful?

 

[yorksrob]

How so? Because it's 1/4 people shielding instead of the rest of the population?

The rest of the population haven't been shielding, though. Shielding is a much more restrictive measure, especially compared to the tiers we have "enjoyed".
If you are shielding you cannot go to work.
To shield 15m+ would be a lot harder on the economy than what we have now in my opinion.

But the tiers don't seem to be preventing the surge in hospitalisations. If you're going to have people furloughed at home, better that they be the ones most at risk from the thing. At present, we have a load of younger people furloughed because of the lockdown which targets the industrys where whey work, when older, at risk individuals are expected to go out and face the virus.

 

[MikeWM]

Can I ask where 15million is coming from, I'm sure that back in March far fewer people than this were sent letters from their doctor instructing them to be careful?

I think it is the 'vulnerable' list rather than the 'extremely vulnerable'. The former is more-or-less those who are invited for the annual flu vaccination, and includes people with asthma, diabetes, hypertension, various immune system conditions, etc. (I'm on that list for at least a couple of reasons, though I see no particular reason why I need to be especially careful or shield, and no-one has told me to).

 

[initiation]

I see that nobody has really engaged with my initial post in this thread where I quoted the predictions of several forum members who felt back in the summer that there would be no second wave. Oh and on other threads that London had achieved herd immunity back in June. Well, there was one post, that asked me not to use the terms ‘second wave’ or ‘herd immunity’.

I responded to this. What wave? We have some excess deaths yes but nothing like a 'wave' or surge comparable to the spring.

Would this be called a wave of excess deaths? Looks more like a ripple broadly comparable to the winter of 2017/18.
Hint: not all 'Covid deaths' are excess deaths.

View attachment 87881

Graphs and maps from EUROMOMO

www.euromomo.eu

Here is the London 'died with covid' graph from the gov dashboard. What wave?

 

[sjpowermac]

I responded to this. What wave? We have some excess deaths yes but nothing like a 'wave' or surge comparable to the spring.



Here is the London 'died with covid' graph from the gov dashboard. What wave?
View attachment 87928

And the claims of herd immunity in London? They don’t seem so clever now.

Perhaps you could bob along with your graphs to some of the hospitals in London and the South East and try telling them that they are not experiencing a ‘second wave’?

Since I seem to be being viewed as a ‘Locktivist’ for the avoidance of doubt I’m not and don’t look forward at all to the next few weeks.

 

[6862]

On another matter, this has just turned up on the BBC website:

Covid rule-breakers 'have blood on their hands'

An intensive care doctor tells BBC Radio 5 Live the rise in cases is down to people not social distancing.

www.bbc.co.uk

According to Hugh Montgomery - an intensive care doctor:

"it was wrong to blame the surge in cases and deaths on the new variant of coronavirus, which was only "slightly" more transmissible and caused the same symptoms.
"It is making me actually very angry now that people are laying the blame on the virus, and it is not the virus, it is people, people are not washing their hands, they are not wearing their masks,"

On the one hand we have a new more transmissable strain that is overtaking the country. On the other, it's down to people not following the rules and stopping doing the things they've been doing for the past nine months.

From a personal point of view, I find it very hard to believe that behavioural issues alone have caused the surge in cases sweeping in from the South East. Has everyone suddenly decided to go out and have a party this Xmas ?

This article made me rather annoyed when I saw it. It's blatant propaganda and fearmongering from the BBC - it's not news! There have been so many examples of this in 2020 - someone says something about how terrible the situation is and we're all doomed if we don't all cower in fear behind our sofas, and it makes headlines. I'm just about to submit a complaint to the BBC now.

 

[yorksrob]

This article made me rather annoyed when I saw it. It's blatant propaganda and fearmongering from the BBC - it's not news! There have been so many examples of this in 2020 - someone says something about how terrible the situation is and we're all doomed if we don't all cower in fear behind our sofas, and it makes headlines. I'm just about to submit a complaint to the BBC now.

I don't doubt it's sincere on the Doctors part. It's just one moment, it's a new strain that's overwhelming everything, then the next it's back to keep your distance and hand washing.

My conclusion is that I'll carry on with the keeping distance/handwashing etc.

 

[6862]

I don't doubt it's sincere on the Doctors part. It's just one moment, it's a new strain that's overwhelming everything, then the next it's back to keep your distance and hand washing.

My conclusion is that I'll carry on with the keeping distance/handwashing etc.

I agree that it is probably sincere on his part. But his opinion doesn't need broadcasting to the entire nation. I recognise that as a medical professional he is in the frontline and may genuinely feel what he has said, but his views are not news.

 

[brad465]

This article made me rather annoyed when I saw it. It's blatant propaganda and fearmongering from the BBC - it's not news! There have been so many examples of this in 2020 - someone says something about how terrible the situation is and we're all doomed if we don't all cower in fear behind our sofas, and it makes headlines. I'm just about to submit a complaint to the BBC now.

As someone loathing the whole divide and rule consequences of our response and its attitudes, I completely agree with you here and have also submitted a formal complaint, using the argument it's divisive and lacking evidence to either support alternative responsibility or dismiss it, which would at least improve confidence in the argument were such evidence present.

 

[Bikeman78]

COVID is an unfair condition.

I'm of the opinion that those not at highest risk need to be keeping the economy ticking over for all of our sakes, whilst those that need to, shield.

I've said previously that some assistance could be provided to help younger people in multi-generational households to move out, maybe temporarily (there must be a lot of empty hotel accommodation around at the moment). It goes without saying that if they did find themselves living with someone shielding, they would be shielding themselves.

On another matter, this has just turned up on the BBC website:

Covid rule-breakers 'have blood on their hands'

An intensive care doctor tells BBC Radio 5 Live the rise in cases is down to people not social distancing.

www.bbc.co.uk

According to Hugh Montgomery - an intensive care doctor:

"it was wrong to blame the surge in cases and deaths on the new variant of coronavirus, which was only "slightly" more transmissible and caused the same symptoms.
"It is making me actually very angry now that people are laying the blame on the virus, and it is not the virus, it is people, people are not washing their hands, they are not wearing their masks,"

On the one hand we have a new more transmissable strain that is overtaking the country. On the other, it's down to people not following the rules and stopping doing the things they've been doing for the past nine months.

From a personal point of view, I find it very hard to believe that behavioural issues alone have caused the surge in cases sweeping in from the South East. Has everyone suddenly decided to go out and have a party this Xmas ?

I don't even understand what point he is making. Is he blaming people for catching the virus and ending up in hospital? Or is it all the fault of the people that don't end up in hospital?

 

[Laryk]

Genuine question - do we really need to shield 15m people though? Why not just the most vulnerable who disproportionately contribute to the number of hospitalisations and deaths?

Because my premise is that only 2.2m (I thought it was 1.5m, I stand corrected) would not stop the rest of the vulnerable group from being hospitalised. It must be remembered that Covid will affect many who aren't clinically extremely vulnerable, or who aren't even vulnerable at all, as the data below shows.
And precisely how disproportionately do these most vulnerable contribute? I have attempted to give an idea below, but as far is I can tell there is no data publicly available regarding this.

Where does 15m come from? In England, 2.2million people were identified as being clinically extremely vulnerable and should shield. A few hundred thousand more in Scotland/Wales/N.Ireland.

It goes back to my point that the shielding of CEV was never intended to reduce the rate of patients admitted to hospital - it was simply to protect those that would most likely die.

Does anyone know the split between those in hospital who are clinically extremely vulnerable vs those just vulnerable? I posit that a significant majority are "healthy" vulnerable rather than the most unwell in our society.
Here's some data from April: "The commonest comorbidities were chronic cardiac disease (29%), uncomplicated diabetes (19%), non-asthmatic chronic pulmonary disease (19%) and asthma (14%); 47% had no documented reported comorbidity."
If we have a look at the definition of a "vulnerable" person, it includes:

• chronic (long-term) respiratory diseases, such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema or bronchitis
• chronic heart disease
• diabetes

All of which were the majority of comorbidities of patients admitted to hospital (excluding no comorbidities at all).
The impression that the majority of hospitalisations are made up of CEV persons doesn't seem to stand up.

I responded to this. What wave? We have some excess deaths yes but nothing like a 'wave' or surge comparable to the spring.



Here is the London 'died with covid' graph from the gov dashboard. What wave?
View attachment 87928

Talking about deaths as a measure of the effect on hospitals or the presence or lack of a second wave is disingenuous. Have you missed the daily new infections statistics? Did you miss the reports that the situation is worse precisely because treatment has improved, resulting in patients staying longer in hospitals instead of dying?
@sjpowermac did enlighten you with a similar post. I suggest you concentrate on "patients in hospital" data and if you want to argue there is no "second wave".

I think it is the 'vulnerable' list rather than the 'extremely vulnerable'. The former is more-or-less those who are invited for the annual flu vaccination, and includes people with asthma, diabetes, hypertension, various immune system conditions, etc. (I'm on that list for at least a couple of reasons, though I see no particular reason why I need to be especially careful or shield, and no-one has told me to).

Precisely. See data above regarding common comorbidities.


Interesting point for those claiming that the London Nightingale Hospital can't/won't be used again, or that it's dismantling was evidence of the lack of severity. It's back open.

 

[johntea]

I work for the NHS in a non medical role and remember getting a job offer in late November - I could start straight away as I was unemployed at the time but HR took until early March to process all the relevant checks and paperwork so the red tape is certainly not a new issue!

One perk of the Nightingale for me is it can be a nice place to go and work in peace and quiet with it having a fibre link running from it to our hospital, they are still on standby behind the scenes but the issue is a lot of the admin staff are just contractors with not much to do so as soon as they get a better contract somewhere else they're off and new contractors have to be bought in and trained all over again, there must be about 6 different asset stickers on the chairs now

 

[initiation]

Covid will affect many who aren't clinically extremely vulnerable, or who aren't even vulnerable at all

47% had no documented reported comorbidity.

Unless you are using a different definition of comorbidity or vulnerable, these statements are not true.
In total in 2020 less than 400 people aged 60 or below with no underlying health conditions have died following a positive covid test result. As mentioned in the media a few days ago, more under 60s died on the roads in 2019 than of covid.

I suggest you concentrate on "patients in hospital" data and if you want to argue there is no "second wave"

Why? Fundamentally there is currently no radically high number of excess deaths.
The hospitalisation data is also (like other metrics publically available) flawed; for example we don't know how many are there for some other reason but tested positive anyway or how many caught it while in hospital or what level of treatment is being given.

Anyway I feel this discussion is perhaps straying from the subject of this thread so will leave it there.

 

[Laryk]

Unless you are using a different definition of comorbidity or vulnerable, these statements are not true.
In total in 2020 less than 400 people aged 60 or below with no underlying health conditions have died following a positive covid test result. As mentioned in the media a few days ago, more under 60s died on the roads in 2019 than of covid.

Again, you should stop focussing on deaths as a measure of the problem. The media are not claiming the NHS is under pressure because of deaths. Nowhere did I claim to be talking about deaths. The statement I quoted is not about deaths. It's regarding Covid hospitalisation.
And the figures are true. Taken from here.
The fact that less than 400 people aged 60 or below with no underlying health conditions have died following a positive covid test result therefore has no relevance.

Why? Fundamentally there is currently no radically high number of excess deaths.

I've not said that there is. We're talking about the belief that there isn't a problem regarding a second wave of coronavirus infections and hospitalisations.

for example we don't know how many are there for some other reason but tested positive anyway or how many caught it while in hospital or what level of treatment is being given.

The precise nature of how a patient was infected hardly diminishes the argument that we are in a second wave. Surely the fact that London went from an average of 8 admission per day in August to an average of 547 as of most recent data (using the same flawed data) is significant regardless of how the patient was infected.
Level of treatment is also largely irrelevant. A patient in a bed is a patient in a bed. There is a finite number of beds.

 

[Bantamzen]

On another matter, this has just turned up on the BBC website:

Covid rule-breakers 'have blood on their hands'

An intensive care doctor tells BBC Radio 5 Live the rise in cases is down to people not social distancing.

www.bbc.co.uk

According to Hugh Montgomery - an intensive care doctor:

"it was wrong to blame the surge in cases and deaths on the new variant of coronavirus, which was only "slightly" more transmissible and caused the same symptoms.
"It is making me actually very angry now that people are laying the blame on the virus, and it is not the virus, it is people, people are not washing their hands, they are not wearing their masks,"

On the one hand we have a new more transmissable strain that is overtaking the country. On the other, it's down to people not following the rules and stopping doing the things they've been doing for the past nine months.

From a personal point of view, I find it very hard to believe that behavioural issues alone have caused the surge in cases sweeping in from the South East. Has everyone suddenly decided to go out and have a party this Xmas ?

I'm going to be blunt here, this doctor is a disgrace and should be ashamed of himself. It is not his job to shame people into that kind of guilt, people who might just have very legitimate reasons for not being able to wear masks or social distance. Quite honestly if it were up to me he would be struck off with immediate effect, even with a potential shortage of trained medical professionals not one should be making such statements. I am fuming at this, he will cause far more damage than he will solve.

 

[Richard Scott]

I'm going to be blunt here, this doctor is a disgrace and should be ashamed of himself. It is not his job to shame people into that kind of guilt, people who might just have very legitimate reasons for not being able to wear masks or social distance. Quite honestly if it were up to me he would be struck off with immediate effect, even with a potential shortage of trained medical professionals not one should be making such statements. I am fuming at this, he will cause far more damage than he will solve.

Agreed, another person after their 15 minutes of fame and hoping for a tidy payout from it as well. If he was any good he would be questioning the validity of all this mask wearing and not making such stupid statements. I have no patience with these so called professionals who just want to make a name for themselves.

 

[Bantamzen]

Agreed, another person after their 15 minutes of fame and hoping for a tidy payout from it as well. If he was any good he would be questioning the validity of all this mask wearing and not making such stupid statements. I have no patience with these so called professionals who just want to make a name for themselves.

This is far worse than seeking a bit of fame, this so-called Professor will cause untold mental health damage to many people with that stupid statement. I've already submitted a complaint to the BBC for giving him airtime, and I will be seeking avenues to complain about him directly. I was angry enough at some medical staff early on in the pandemic who took to social media to try and guilt people about covid, but this is beyond the pale. If Professor Montgomery cannot evidence his claim that people not wearing masks or social distancing have "blood on their hands", then he needs to be brought to account. This is nothing sort of mental abuse.

 

[Wychwood93]

I would like to think that 'Monty' and assorted other NHS 'professionals' who pop up on the media with a host of divergent views have cleared their outpourings with their superiors.