
UK Health Minister tests positive for coronavirus - finphil
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51827356
======
Camas
>Ms Dorries, 62, met hundreds of people last week, including a large number of
MPs, and attended a conference outside Westminster. On Thursday she attended a
Downing Street event hosted by Mr Johnson to mark International Women’s Day.

[https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-infected-
mins...](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-infected-minster-
nadine-dorries-had-been-in-no-10-c3sjs5kmp)

Might end up closing parliament over this.

~~~
tanilama
Virus is truly the most impactful weapon you could think of to disrupt a
society...

~~~
goatlover
Not nukes?

~~~
fendy3002
It's to distrupt society, not to destroy humanity.

~~~
dzhiurgis
There ain't enough nukes to destroy humanity...

~~~
TeMPOraL
There's about enough, if you don't forget to nuke the Sentinelese.

------
paxys
I feel like politicians are generally more at risk, just because of the number
of people they have to meet everyday, and large gatherings they have to
attend.

~~~
gpm
I have to wonder how coronavirus and health in general is going to effect
American politics.

The democratic primaries are currently under way, both the candidates are well
into their seventies. After that the presidential election starts, where the
winner of the primaries faces off against the younger Donald Trump. Younger at
74 years of age (at the time of the election, now 73).

Whoever wins this election is going to be the oldest person ever to win an
election for president.

What happens if they catch Coronavirus and die at an inopportune time? What
happens if they just die of old age?

Maybe it won't be an issue, so far they all seem to be in reasonably good
health for their age, and they all undoubtedly have access to the best medical
care in the world. On the other hand they are exposed to all sorts of viruses,
and they all have very high stress jobs.

~~~
Izkata
> both the candidates are well into their seventies

Tulsi Gabbard hasn't dropped out yet, and is only 38.

...it would certainly be an interesting development if they had to go with her
by default.

~~~
true_religion
By default, Buttigeg would win if everyone who was older than 60 died. A
concession made when your opponent is alive, can easily be taken back if
circumstances change drastically.

------
coconut_crab
The 32nd patient here caught ncovid-19 and started showing symptoms on the the
2nd of March whole staying in the UK. But the hospital refused to test her and
told her to self quarantine at home instead. Six days later her condition got
worse and her family which is very rich rented an airplane to fly her back to
our third world country for treatment. The girl now has damaged lung and is in
serious condition. I just don't know what is wrong with the hospitals over
there, why did they refuse to test her? It's very irresponsible and the
situation seems much worse than it seems in the UK.

Oh and nearly half a dozen new cases here recently are all Britons too.

(Google for 32nd covid-19 patient in Vietnam if you want to know more)

~~~
arethuza
NHS advice is _not_ to go to hospital or a GP's surgery if you suspect you
have it but to self isolate, get in touch with them and take it from there:

[https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-
covid-19/](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/)

Edit: It also occurs to me that if she is from a wealthy family perhaps she
tried to use private healthcare - which would be definitely be the wrong thing
to do in an emergency situation.

~~~
makomk
The NHS's approach to testing definitely isn't perfect, but it seems to be
fairly well thought out and relatively aggressive. They don't want people
going to hospitals or GP surgeries because that can spread the infection to
more vulnerable people.

Also, if I'm understanding the news coverage correctly, all the cases of
Covid-19 exported to Vietnam from the UK are related. More specifically,
they're tied to one traveller who'd recently visited Lombardy in Italy, either
by flying on the same plane as her back to Vietnam whilst she had symptoms or
in the case of patient 32 by having met up with her in London. Having symptoms
and having met someone confirmed to have the virus would definitely qualify
for testing here or most places.

------
jpxw
Maybe the government will actually do something now. We are going to see more
and more political leaders catch this.

------
twic
Last wednesday, having spoken in a debate, she was packed into a division
lobby with 318 other Conservative MPs:

[https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2020-03-04b.903.0](https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2020-03-04b.903.0)

With grim irony, voting against a motion on increasing equal access to
healthcare.

~~~
PeterisP
It's claimed that she's self-quarantining now.

However, shouldn't _everyone she had contact with_ be self-quarantining for 14
days now, to verify if they caught it from her or not? Is NHS recommending
that? Are all her recent contacts (including these MPs) being traced and
tested or quarantined?

~~~
marksomnian
From the article:

> Public Health England had started tracing people she had had contact with,
> and the department and her parliamentary office were closely following its
> advice.

So that will probably happen within a day or two.

~~~
notahacker
The idea of the Opposition passing legislation because all her government
colleagues in the voting lobby are unable to attend due to being in self-
isolation is an interesting one...

------
amiga_500
Boris Johnson's "strategy" is to put on a brave face, in lieu of doing some
hard work, taking unpopular decisions and generally leading.

Because of this his cabinet also have to put on a brave face. Out meeting and
greeting. Nothing wrong here. Carry on!

This is the result.

We need leaders and we need them to stay above ground to execute the necessary
steps to prevent what could become a very nasty situation.

I might also add that at 62, given she fell ill on Friday, to say the next
Tuesday:

> "It’s been pretty rubbish but I hope I’m over the worst of it now,"

They should take her blood and find out what is in it!

~~~
allovernow
Look, the bottom line is that given the obvious unpopularity of right wing
leadership on most popular online outlets (most news media, especially online,
Reddit, Twitter, etc) literally anything that they do is going to be
criticized.

Probably better to avoid posting about them on HN.

You're going to hear about _everything_ negative that they do, but you are
unlikely to hear much about the positive steps that they take. 2 examples:

1\. Trump ordered millions of masks from 3M weeks ago. Did you hear about
that? [0]

2\. Trump is proposing payroll tax cuts until the end of the year [1]. Did you
hear about that?

My point isn't to defend anyone, just to emphasize that any news you hear
about what politicians are doing is likely to be heavily skewed towards
negativity, even when undeserved, so take your propaganda of choice (left and
right) with a hefty grain of salt.

0\.
[https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/trump-3m-cor...](https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/trump-3m-coronavirus-
pandemic-mask-order-billion-sales-boost-profit-2020-3-1028956217)

1\. [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/09/trump-says-hes-working-
on-a-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/09/trump-says-hes-working-on-a-payroll-
tax-cut-to-help-us-workers-amid-coronavirus-outbreak.html)

~~~
pbourke
1\. This is a required response to the crisis, not something noteworthy.
They're ordering masks because they didn't have enough and as we see now
they're already running low.

2\. How in the hell is yet another tax cut a positive development? How will
that affect the course of the crisis? Even as an economic measure, it will
help no one who loses their job. Just asinine.

~~~
allovernow
>This is a required response to the crisis, not something noteworthy. They're
ordering masks because they didn't have enough and as we see now they're
already running low.

The president was under no obligation to order masks. There is no precedent.
It was a legitimately good decision that is worth of praise, despite the
various errors that the administration has already made.

The executive branch is attempting to use the market to incentivize sick leave
and stimulate the economy by making business cheaper. There's a phenomenon
known as the laffer curve that I encourage you to look up.

The first point in particular is what I'm talking about. It helps to take off
the partisan goggles once in a while. If they'd done nothing they be
criticized too.

Also don't forget that the administration very early on shut down travel with
China - and some of the press (and political opponents like Schumer) did not
hesitate with accusations of xenophobia.

It's possible for dumb and/or shitty people to do good things.

------
tigershark
This inspires a lot of confidence...

~~~
johannes1234321
As said elsewhere: A key part of being a Politician is meeting tons and tons
of different people while travelling around. This makes them prime target for
such a virus. Independently from political views and parties.

------
jariel
If someone with no contact with infected people is getting infected, then the
cat is out of the bag. This is a big deal.

I suppose the UK has to lock down now before it's too late and the hospitals
start overflowing.

~~~
mantap
The lockdown will happen when Conservative MPs (especially ministers) start
getting hospitalised.

Also I'm worried about the Queen, I don't know what the COVID-19 death rate
for 93 year olds is but it's surely supremely high.

------
Non24Throw
I guess he better lay down, drink plenty of fluids, and have some chicken
noodle soup?

This whole story has become so over-the-top it’s almost comical.

Every tech company falling over themselves to see who can have the “stronger
response”, because they don’t want to risk the brand damage that would come
from media companies singling them out as the company that let one of their
people get the sniffles...

This is such blatant sensationalist fear-mongering nonsense from the media
companies. It’s unfortunate that we (apparently) still give them so much
power.

~~~
asenna
Are you saying that suggesting employees to work from home is a sensational,
over-the-top move by the tech companies?

There's so many things wrong with what you just said. It's not just the
"sniffles". Even if someone young and healthy gets it, they will survive but
there's a chance they'll spread to someone who's at a much higher risk.

This is the stage to NOT give up and just let it spread all over. Being overly
cautious is still much better than what could happen if this spills over to an
uncontrollable level (which I fear is already the case in some areas).

~~~
Non24Throw
So you’re saying that all companies should have everyone work from home from
October to February.

That’s flu season. The flu is more transmissible, has a higher fatality rate
than COVID-19, and is more dangerous for the same immunocompromised
demographic (young, elderly, and those with preexisting conditions).

And you think I’m being irrational.

I have mild respiratory symptoms right now (mucus in nasal cavity, post-nasal
drip, fever, aches, cough) in a region where coronavirus is prevalent. There’s
a good chance that I have coronavirus right now. It’s not nearly bad enough to
prevent me from working, which is often the case with coronavirus because the
symptoms are usually mild.

Many people with coronavirus are completely asymptomatic, recover fully and
don’t even realize they had it.

You are watching the news too much, and not being appropriately skeptical of
it.

~~~
asenna
> It’s not nearly bad enough to prevent me from working

> Many people with coronavirus are completely asymptomatic, recover fully and
> don’t even realize they had it.

I'm not disputing any of these. YOU will be fine. The problem is, you will
spread it to a lot more people and eventually the serious ones with underlying
conditions will need medical care and eventually the health care services are
going to be overwhelmed and rendered helpless (like is happening in Italy
right now).

So basically, they're asking people not in the risk like you and I to at least
not spread it to other people who might be at more risk.

You're being too skeptical of the news. WHO and other organizations are very
clearly warning to take this more seriously. Pandemics are not declared every
other flu season.

~~~
Non24Throw
They’re overwhelmed because the media is deliberately creating mass hysteria
over what would have otherwise been rightly responded to as if it were just
another random cold. Everyone with the sniffles thinks they’re going to die
and wants to get tested for COVID-19. Of course they’re overwhelmed.

If you want to argue at least stay logically consistent with your own
argument. Say that everyone should work from home from October to February.

Every argument you’re making applies even moreso to influenza. So, should we
all work from home from October to February ???

~~~
asenna
> They’re overwhelmed because the media is deliberately creating mass hysteria

Are we discussing opinions or facts here? I guess you're not aware of what's
happening in Italy. Health services are overflowing with the ones requiring
_serious_ care. Not the ones testing out their sniffles.

[https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-italy-
doctor...](https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-italy-doctors-
forced-to-prioritise-icu-care-for-patients-with-best-chance-of-s)

This conversation very quickly went from HN quality to Reddit-like, which made
me look up your profile - it looks like you're new here, I'd suggest you to
read a few HN quidelines :)

~~~
Non24Throw
It’s a throwaway, I’ve been using HN for close to a decade. I’ve worked with
multiple YC companies and currently work at Google on a team with multiple YC
alumni. Refusing to acknowledge facts or listen to reason, becoming insecure
and digging in on a completely irrational argument, then digging through my
profile in an attempt to turn it into a pointless pissing match is all you’ve
done here, and I think that describes discourse on reddit pretty well.

Didn’t mean to hurt your pride, just trying to share some rational ideas in a
time of unprecedented hysteria. Think what you want.

~~~
asenna
> Refusing to acknowledge facts or listen to reason..

I think you missed the main point of my previous comment again. Seriously,
facts rather than opinions right now. I'll repeat again:

I guess you're not aware of what's happening in Italy. Health services are
overflowing with the ones requiring serious care. Not the ones testing out
their sniffles.

[https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-italy-
doctor...](https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-italy-doctors-
forced-to-prioritise-icu-care-for-patients-with-best-chance-of-s)

Not sniffles - all serious cases.

------
atoav
Edit: Treat this as unbased hearsay, I have no way to prove it (and neither
has she). In my judgement she didn't make it up.

On the minister: At least he could get tested. I personally know a person who
has the symptoms, has been to Rome and has been denied a test because they
were no registered citizen in the Netherlands (Stundent from another EU
nation).

Edit: maybe she fell victim to a overworked callcenter operator, who told her
the wrong reason why she wouldn't get tested.

~~~
roel_v
The Dutch criteria, at the moment, include that you have to have a fever (38
or up), or respiratory complaints, _and_ having been to any one of the
_Northern_ Italian provinces. Rome is not one of them. Your friend being
denied a test has nothing to do with whether or not she's registered. She
doesn't fit the criteria for getting tested.

 _edit_ I also think you should explain this to her. I understand and
recognize that not all bureaucratic procedures are equally sane or
understandable, but in this specific case, she's being treated as she should
be ('should' as in 'what is decided is the best', not as in 'what in a few
years time we will determine would have been the best'). There is no reason
for her to be jaded or put off by anything health related - people have
reasons to become cynical about government services, but this is not one of
them. Unfortunately circumstances like this turn people off from central
measures, which then undermines future global population health, much like
anti-vaxxers. Consider this your opportunity to make a tiny contribution to a
well-informed citizenry :)

~~~
droithomme
They should test her. She might have it. They have the testing capacity. Your
opinion on this is incorrect. If Netherlands continues with this policy they
are following in the horrific missteps of the US in restricting testing.

Some homebody with symptoms that don't match? Put them at the bottom of the
queue for testing if there is limited testing capacity. In the meantime, grow
testing capacity as fast as you can which is 100% of political issue and not a
scientific or economic one, and make as many n95 masks as possible
domestically.

> "she's being treated as she should be"

That is a completely unmerited claim and one which causes harm.

~~~
roel_v
WTF are you talking about? This is not my opinion. This is plain fact:
[https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-
covid-19/questions-...](https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-
covid-19/questions-and-answers) . Now, you might not agree with this
policy/protocol. That's fine. I'm not sure I do either (although I do think
that neither you nor I are in a better position to judge than they are on how
much testing capacity they have). What I was saying (and I was very careful to
phrase it that way) is that she's being treated _according to current
protocol_. And my "treated as she should be" (great job on your selective
quoting) referred to exactly that.

~~~
PeterisP
The point probably is that your statement of "treated as she should be"
implies acceptance of the protocol and the whole situation as something that's
acceptable instead of treating it as an example of a horrifically broken
system that must be changed, and circumvented until it's changed.

Passing that protocol was negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives, but
that's not the main case here.

But _following_ that protocol was also negligent, reckless and harmful to
human lives. The people on site should have acknowledged that this protocol is
broken and should be ignored, and that people like her should be tested even
if someone else has made a mistake.

And also _endorsing following that protocol_ is also negligent, reckless and
harmful to human lives. If some institution denies testing like this, then
it's immoral to accept their actions as valid and reasonable and acceptable.
It's a moral imperative to point this out, and shame them for following the
(broken) system instead of doing the right thing, and remind them that "just
following the orders" is not an excuse if the orders are immoral; that blindly
following broken protocols is simply not okay in an epidemic emergency.

A few days delay in spreading the outbreak make a large difference in the
total number of deaths. I recall an epidemiologic paper on the Wuhan case
which modeled various containment scenarios, and the conclusion was that
enforcing Wuhan lockdown 10 days (if I recall correctly) earlier would have
reduced the number of cases and deaths threefold, and delaying Wuhan lockdown
by two weeks would have increased the number of cases and deaths threefold.

~~~
roel_v
Apart from the fact that, within the context of the other words of my post,
your first sentence is plain not true, I'm not sure I (to paraphrase Babbage
badly) I understand the level of confusion that is required to come to your
conclusion.

When combating a large-scale crisis like this, you need well-coordinated
action. The very basic thing you _can not_ have is every Dick and Harry making
their own decisions and improvising on what is the best course of action, each
from their own (limited) knowledge of facts and circumstances. More
concretely, you _can not_ have every random call center employee decide for
themselves whether or not to follow the explicit instructions they are given.
That would devolve into chaos in a matter of hours. So no, nothing that
happened here is 'negligent' or 'reckless'. ('harmful to human lives', we'll
know in a few months or years, but it's a different matter all together). You
need central control, and you suggesting that people should just make up their
own course of action (call center employees, no less - the people tasked with
the dissemination of the very protocol itself) is so far beyond my frame of
understanding that I do not think we can have a meaningful discussion on this.

(and you 'recalling reading some paper on epidemiology' and basing your
(seemingly very strongly held) opinion on everyone winging it on that, just
confirms this view on how to manage large scale hazard events)

~~~
PeterisP
We need well-coordinated action but if the people on site see that the action
is not actually coordinated well, then they need to take proper actions
anyway.

All other things being equal, central control has many advantages, but I
strongly disagree that central control is the most important thing. A good
example is the situation in Washington state - we only found out about the
cases in Seattle because local labs defied CDC and tested themselves after
being reportedly denied. It's definitely a good thing that they diverged from
the central control, and it would definitely be a harmful thing to satisfy
central control and let community spread in Seattle remain undetected.

I'm not saying that a random call center employee should arbitrarily decide,
but if a local institution has enough skills, expertise and information to
make an informed decision in the best interest of their patients, then they
definitely should defy central control.

