Why is UK one of the worst hit?

growstuff I think your view in the 1950's is, at best, a little uncharitable since Britain after the war was virtually bankrupt with industry on a war footing and a major housing shortage. There was change, notably the development of the NHS and nationalisation although whether the latter helped or hindered development is open to argument. Over the whole of the 1950's, there was significant change.

Yes, I know that the late 1940s saw the birth of the NHS, huge changes to education and the welfare state. There was also a massive house building programme in the 1950s. Nevertheless, the country returned a Conservative government after the Labour landslide and industry did bumble along with antiquated machinery and management structures. The country had relied on having an Empire to prop it up and wasn't prepared for what happened in the 1960s.

Compare that with what was already happening in mainland Europe. Most countries were even more devastated by war than the UK, but there was a change in thinking. Contrary to myth, the UK received more Marshall Plan money than Germany did, but by the 1960s, Germany had rebuilt itself from almost nothing and there was an "economic miracle".

I'm not claiming that it was black/white, but I honestly do think that the UK has never been good at forward planning (not claiming other countries are either).

As you might have time on your hands, read George Orwell's "The Lion and the Unicorn", which was written in 1941, but still resonates today.

Deaths per million of population would be a far more comparable figure. eg the deaths per million in uk is half that in Belgium

witzend, I just saw that you have already written about deaths per million of population. It seems that in fact the uk is doing remarkably well considering that we are such an overcrowded island

crafty as I posted previously, deaths per million in Germany are less than a quarter of ours

This is a new virus and even the scientists and medical people don't understand it fully yet. I read somewhere that it had even been suggested that there are three different strains of the virus, which might explain why some people hardly know they are ill whereas others, sometimes with no known underlying health issues, become seriously ill or even die.

It has also been reported that some of the "antibody" testing kits may not be reliable and that, in any event, it is not known for sure whether people who contract the virus will be immune on a permanent basis, though it is believed they may be immune in the short term.

We do not know whether the Swedish approach of carrying on almost as normal is the right thing to do or if, at some point, there will be an explosion of cases, which they will be unable to deal with. We can't necessarily extrapolate from one country whether the same procedures will work in another. Sweden, for instance, is not very densely populated. Time will tell.

I don't think it's been fully explained why 2 metres is considered to be a relatively "safe" distance. If it is, as I read somewhere, to avoid breathing in possible cough and sneeze droplets, then that seems not far enough. Most sites say that cough droplets can travel as far as 6 metres and sneeze droplets 8 metres. But when you're out, is it a normal occurrence for people to sneeze and cough very near to you? It is said that, other than that particular circumstances, the virus is not air borne but is only transferred by touch, to mouth, eyes or nose.

It is very heartening that many, many people have volunteered, sometimes at a risk to themselves, to help people in all sorts of ways and in all sorts of situations. What I find a little depressing though is the obvious relish with which some people seem to be monitoring the behaviour of others and suggesting they are responsible for "killing" people.

But some of these critics are very reluctant to be at all critical of our government's role in all this. Most people appreciate that any government would have found this situation unbearably challenging. It must have been difficult to decide what approach should be used, given that so many knowledgeable and highly qualified epidemiologists and other experts had different opinions as to what strategy should be used.

However, there are other areas where I believe it is justifiable to criticise. The government had been warned on many occasions that an epidemic or pandemic was very likely to occur within the next few years, that we were inadequately prepared in terms of planning, equipment, staffing and any number of other issues, and that steps should be taken to rectify our unpreparedness. Nothing was done. At the outset, Boris Johnson and his colleagues instructed people to wash their hands, to maintain a distance of 2 metres from other people, not to shake hands and to generally avoid situations where several people would be present (such instructions that they did not necessarily take heed of themselves). Yet at quite a late stage Johnson made the decision to close pubs, restaurants, gyms, libraries, hairdressers, nail bars, beauty salons, theatres, cinemas, clubs, etc, etc. which, if the information regarding the main means of transfer being touch is reliable, were the most likely places for people to be in close, and in some cases very close, proximity.

Regarding the totals of diagnosed cases in Wales which seems high, ‘only’ 384 (not minimising the loss one iota) have died which is very low given the ageing population.

Most of those deaths are in the south and although no figures are given for deaths per county, my own county is the third lowest with only 57 confirmed cases. Our problem here in north Wales is stopping visitors coming who believe it to be safer than the cities and placing a greater strain on stretched resources.

NfkDumpling said:

'Apportioning blame isn’t doing any good. Saying we should have done more earlier isn’t changing anything. I don’t care whether we should have ‘Locked down’ earlier. I do care that people are flouting the instructions right now.'

I think that just entirely misses the point. It wasn't 'we' who should have locked down earlier - it was our government. They dragged their heels. It resulted in excess deaths. I really do care about that, don't you?.

Some people are ignoring the rules now. They are not responsible for previous excess deaths - or the current rate of infections. We have only been in lockdown for three weeks. There is a 3 - 4 week lag between catching the virus and dying!

Blaming rule breakers is just too convenient for the government. They've had meetings to blame the Civil Service and NHS England too. Anything to deflect the blame and damage limitation are the name of the game for career politicians, after all.

But are we?

If you look at stats per 1m of population then we are not.

But the population needs to understand and follow the rules. Most are, some are not.

I expect that nice Mr Corbyn would have had things well under control by now, ( when he wasn't dithering).

I live in the worst area of Wales, Pantglas and this area is not particularly poor or aged as far as I know.

Apparently it is because we are close to London.
Nothing to do with the inept Welsh Assembly.
Testing of key NHS workers was not carried out today because not many would be going to work on a Bank Holiday Monday.

I could weep.

You're obsessed with that man, lemongrove.

I read that there is three different strains too.
That is why it can be so unpredictable.

Things do seem bad in South Wales Callistemon- here along north Wales coast and Anglesey people come to retire so I’d have expected things much worse.

I have just read that it is pointless worrying over which country has the most or least deaths because by the time a vaccine is available the deaths per million per country will basically be the same. This presumption is because lock-down will have to be lifted and this will be done while the virus is still active. The worldwide hope is that if this is done slowly enough it will enable the hospitals to cope with the continuing cases and because the rate of infection will be managed the hope is for a lower mortality rate.

There could be a connection between the statistics for South Wales and the number of retired miners in the area, whose lungs may be already damaged.

Hetty

'Blaming rule breakers is just too convenient for the government. They've had meetings to blame the Civil Service and NHS England too. Anything to deflect the blame and damage limitation are the name of the game for career politicians, after all'
-
Interesting.

Please can you provide evidence they have had meetings to blame the Civil Service and NHS England as you stated a fact. Where did they take place, who is ' they'?

Ok, Hetty, if you wish me to rephrase it, saying our Government should have done more earlier isn't going to going to change anything. It's past. Or can you magically change it?

I have just read that it is pointless worrying over which country has the most or least deaths because by the time a vaccine is available the deaths per million per country will basically be the same.

The worldwide hope is that if this is done slowly enough it will enable the hospitals to cope with the continuing cases and because the rate of infection will be managed the hope is for a lower mortality rate.

These two statements are contradictory, Joelsnan The first seems to say that it really doesn't matter what you do because everyone will end up the same while the second says that actively trying to slow the rate of infection could lead to a lower mortality rate.

So the country that takes the second route is not likely to end up with the same number of deaths as the one that doesn't bother.

I know which country I'd rather be in...

(It would be nice if people could give as a clue as to where they have 'read' all these little snippets of info...)

As Piers Morgan (who I usually loathe with a passion) said, it is CRAZY that the UK has 1/10 of the world's C19 deaths.

Oh, MaizieD
No contradiction at all. Do re read.
The information is available on Twitter

Here is a link to the thread. An interesting hypothesis:
twitter.com/guidofawkes/status/1249750004803219457?s=21

Elegran that may be a factor but it is not primarily a mining area although it does include some in the west.

I did re-read. It makes no sense. If country A lowers mortality and country B doesn't they won't end up with roughly the same number of deaths.

Back to the OP

the UK is not one of the very worst hit per 1m and I sincerely hope we will not be.

Giving credence to Piers Morgan and not to facts is bound to make anyone more upset than ever.

Hetty

'Blaming rule breakers is just too convenient for the government. They've had meetings to blame the Civil Service and NHS England too. Anything to deflect the blame and damage limitation are the name of the game for career politicians, after all'
-
Interesting.

Please can you provide evidence they have had meetings to blame the Civil Service and NHS England as you stated a fact. Where did they take place, who is ' they'?
…from what I've seen of the daily briefings, quite often when a criticism is aimed at the government the government spokesman then makes it sound as if the criticism was aimed at the NHS thereby deflecting it from themselves. No, I can't tell you which day and who said it but we've watched the briefings and remarked on it several times. Also when asked about how many NHS workers had died Hancock passed the question to the lady next to him who then didn't answer the question but talked about 'the nursing family etc etc.