Well he would, wouldn’t he?

In the Herald today as part of its campaign to help with the pandemic strategy:

The chief executive of the firm which owns Glasgow Airport has thrown the gauntlet down to government to support the aviation sector, declaring that mass testing must be pressed into action to get the stricken industry back up and running.

Thrown down the gauntlet?‘ Is that a tad confrontational? does it imply the Government is being a tad unhelpful on purpose?

And, ‘government?’ Neither ‘UK Government’ nor ‘Scottish Government’ is used. The aviation industry is a reserved matter so it would have helped, to inform the readers, that is the former which is responsible and that the Scottish Government is not.

Friend of the Tusker, Brenda Steele, has done this already today so here it is again:

Professor Allyson Pollock spells it out.

Mass testing of the populace is a waste of money.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Christi46847375/status/1325881466086182913

If you can’t be bothered watching the video:

The tests miss large numbers of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic cases who then, emboldened by a negative result, go straight off to become super-spreaders.

4 thoughts on “Well he would, wouldn’t he?”

  1. Airlines are giving out vouchers. Instead of giving refunds. So they have the money for flights and passengers travel that are not happening, Being paid more in fact. In anticipation of new flights and future business. How is that losing money. They could be getting paid twice. They have the money for passengers not taking off. If the vouchers are not used they are paid twice,

    Airlines are getting support for governments worldwide. Getting support several times from different government. The EU and otherwise, How is that the industry being decimated. They are getting support from different sources.

    More like a con job. Passengers money for flights not taken. People are getting their money back from insurance companies who will put up their rates. To compensate. The public paying extra, eventually. In the future flights and insurance could cost more. In the meantime less travelling. Some people claim it is good for the environment. Less unnecessary flights and travel. It is saving lives.

    The EU just put 15% tariffs on some US imported goods. For the US Gov (unfair) monetary support for Boeing. The grounded aircraft because they were unsafe. Another story.

    Airlines are getting support from everywhere. So are airports and slots subsidised by taxes. Mass amounts of public subsidy and monies. Heathrow extension might not go ahead. £Billions saved. Monies which should be spent on improved rail travel in the UK, especially in Scotland. Cutting travel times and improved services. Branson has a hydroloop up and running in America. The signs of the future. Not all doom and gloom.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. One often wonders how persons of his ilk
    Attain positions of authority and importance
    They lack a good old fashioned dose of common sense.But seem to possess a high level of self worth
    I would consider it natural and instinctive to check out reality,before bumping my gums
    So here is reality
    Norway
    Tests / million. 350398
    Cases/ million. 4833
    Deaths/million 53
    UK
    Test / million. 546158
    Cases / million. 18536
    Deaths / million 743
    If somehow you could translate these figs.into
    Real cost financial consequences and present
    As a balance sheet to him
    Tis not a Gauntlett he would be seeking to take on those responsible
    But that of a double barrelled shotgun
    But in his instance before he pulls upon the trigger
    The barrell should be shoved into his big open stupid mouth
    BANG

    Like

  3. There are testing temperature guns which could be used in airports. People tested and isolating coming back on flights. The airport management could be doing more on testing. Instead of just blaming government and passing the buck. The airport management could be doing testing before and after flights. Helping people isolating after flights, if needed.

    The management is doing nothing much about it. They should be getting testing up and running at airports, instead of blaming everyone else. They are doing nothing much else at present. Get their fingers and their temperature guns out. Improving testing. They get enough public funding subsidies and priority. They should be getting testing out as a priority, Instead of passing the buck in a pandemic.What are they doing about it?

    The Gov produces guidelines and rules, The airport management should be following them and setting up testing facilities. A small price to pay to improve business in a pandemic.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The media, including the BBC in the form of Lisa Summers, and the parliamentary opposition parties are all supporting mass testing for covid19 in Scotland.

    Three Professors, Deeks, Brookes and Pollock tell us why this “could do more harm than good to people, populations and the economy.”

    “The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swab test is useful (but not perfect) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA in symptomatic patients.1 However, problems arise using the test for purposes that disregard symptoms or time of infection—namely, case finding, mass screening, and disease surveillance.

    This is because PCR is not a test of infectiousness. Rather, the test detects trace amounts of viral genome sequence, which may be either live transmissible virus or irrelevant RNA fragments from previous infection.2 When people with symptoms or who have been recently exposed receive a positive PCR result they will probably be infectious. But a positive result in someone without symptoms or known recent exposure may be from live or dead virus, and so does not determine whether the person is infectious and able to transmit the virus to others.3

    The PCR “cycle threshold” (Ct) value provides an estimate of the quantity of target RNA in the swab sample. It correlates with symptoms,4 and people with low Ct values (indicating more viral material) are those most likely to be infectious.5 Using a low maximum Ct value (around 3056) has been suggested to reduce problematic detection of dead virus,6 but it will also miss early infection and rising infectiousness in both presymptomatic and symptomatic people. The measurement error of Ct values is non-trivial, and measurements vary between manufacturers and laboratories.7 Thus it is impossible to define a universally optimal Ct value for reliable identification of those who are infectious.

    If PCR is used to identify cases through mass testing of healthy people, it will deliver positive results in individuals with previous resolved infections, new infections, and potential re-infections, as well as false positives in people genuinely not harbouring the virus (around 0.8% of all tests performed8). Identifying the truly infectious—who must isolate—is not straightforward, even with a clinical history. For example, between 4% and 41% of cases are asymptomatic, with a risk of transmission roughly half that of symptomatic cases,9 but a positive test in those with no history of symptoms could indicate either current infection or previously resolved asymptomatic infection.

    Real concern exists that many people who are not infectious (and not likely to become infectious) will receive positive test results, and together with their contacts, will be forced to isolate unnecessarily. In the context of mass surveillance, this could be a majority of those who test positive. Using PCR for population screening—even with a lower maximum Ct value cut off—is not epidemiologically sound. The balance of costs and harms against the potential benefits has not been evaluated.”

    https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3699

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.