Matt Hancock got the evidence about l... - British Lung Foun...

British Lung Foundation

46,575 members54,975 posts

Matt Hancock got the evidence about long Covid wrong.

2greys
2greys

What was claimed:

"Young people are about twice as likely to suffer from “long Covid” after a coronavirus infection".

Verdict:

This is incorrect, based on the data Mr Hancock mentioned, which suggests that people over 70 have about twice the risk of people under 50.

What was claimed:

"There is no link between the severity of a Covid-19 infection and the chances of suffering “long Covid” afterwards".

Verdict:

This is incorrect, based on the data Mr Hancock mentioned, which suggests that people who suffer from “long Covid” had more symptoms when they were infected, and were more likely to have visited hospital.

fullfact.org/health/matt-ha...

This level of incompetence is astounding, he and his department are supposed to comprehensively know all these facts.

13 Replies
oldestnewest

Maybe a little scaremongering amongst the younger generations wouldn’t be amiss.

2greys
2greys in reply to Troilus

Not at the expense of the older generation letting down their guard down though. We have to remain cautious and take extra care before there is a reliable vaccine.

From experience, Long Covid is not to be taken lightly at all, it was a very difficult, worrying and in a lot of ways a distressing episode, as a taste of what is to come as my lungs degrade more with time. Perhaps I should have been a little more forthcoming about it, but it is not really my way to complain too much about my health, it is what it is.

At this point I'd be more surprised if he got something right. And these are the people whose advice we are supposed to take.

The facts are changing everyday as the knowledge base for the virus is ever evolving at this time.

Like Science, one fact based belief can continue for years until another fact is uncovered.

2greys
2greys in reply to Bkin

Other than he quoted from the source wrongly. Whilst I do not think any politician or their office researcher, from whatever party would be a qualified health expert, I do think that when they make direct quotes from a qualified source that they should get the facts correct, on both of those facts.

Let's face it, out in the 'real world' if an employee does not do their job properly they get dismissed! It all boils down to one rule for us another rule for them, again.

Bkin
Bkin in reply to 2greys

Oh dear we are not doing the us and them again are we.

Even computers have failings.

2greys
2greys in reply to Bkin

The trouble is that they are not paid to repeatedly make these sort of errors and expect to get away with it without repercussions. It is only a few weeks ago that mistakes were made over vitamin D. I stand by my statement "Let's face it, out in the 'real world' if an employee does not do their job properly they get dismissed!" No ifs or buts. If they were paid peanuts perhaps it might be forgivable, they are not paid peanuts though. So instead of 'us and them' put it another way then, we would lose our jobs but they don't.

With my own business, as an employer, I would have certainly terminated the employment of an employee who repeatedly made mistakes. If it had been a computer I would have thrown it away, which I have actually done with one of my CNC mills. (CNC = Computer Numerical Control)

Bkin
Bkin in reply to 2greys

No amount of ranting on here is gonna change anything, make the noises in the places it could matter I say.

We don't do politics here remember.

2greys
2greys in reply to Bkin

This not about politics it is about purely competence to do the job. The fact is, I am just drawing attention for folk to think about who to believe when these public statements are made. I don't give a flying fox about who belongs to which party, the fact is if somebody is paid from the public purse they should be competent in doing the job, delivering the proper facts otherwise it descends to just meaningless waffle

Bkin
Bkin in reply to 2greys

Some people can make their own minds up without you having to bring the failings of others to their attention, its bias. And its politics when you start to get anti specifically relating to gov.

2greys
2greys in reply to Bkin

Again only because you wish to make it so, which does seem to be your portfolio in a disagreement. Make it political. Not arguing any more, it does not alter the facts or make a wrong right.

Bkin
Bkin in reply to 2greys

2greys, we are not here to argue period.

the last I am saying on it.

Sack Matt Hancock. I nominate you for Health Minister. PS. he's not related to Tony Hancock, is he?

You may also like...