Hindsight - No Covid deaths recorded 1st June in the UK

[majm]

More golly gosh

It is sensible for a fair minded person on hearing this type of news to consider that the mysterious lung infection mentioned in those early January 2020 media reports may be serious and could even be akin to the Spanish Flu pandemic post WWI.

Not really, no.  Flu is a well understood disease, it can be identified (including new strains) very rapidly, the progression of the disease is known, and treatment protocols are well established.  Part of the problem in the UK is we had made some preparation for a pandemic, but made the assumption it would be be some form of flu.

For a layperson, the most obvious assumed cause for a "mysterious lung infection" emerging in China/Asia would be some form of SARS or MERS. The Global experience with SARS-Cov1 and MERS was that although fatality rates were quite high, the infection did not spread very widely in the community or between countries.

Anyone living in the UK (or elsewhere for that matter) could easily check the NHS page for SARS (Last reviewed 24 October 2019) and see there were a mere 8,098 reported cases in the 2003 outbreak (4 in the UK), and that the outbreaks had been "self-limiting".
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/sars/

That is why the UK didn't go into lockdown in 2003 and 2004, and again not in 2012 when MERS appeared on the scene.

The people I was talking to in January 2020 (including a London NHS anesthetist) all felt the new disease was something like SARS and would be largely contained in Asia as with previous similar outbreaks. That, in hindsight, was a serious error.

ADD "Friday" in the newspaper would be referring to Friday 3 January 2020, which in turn supports mowsehowse's post to which I initially posted supporting her information.

But it doesn't support mowsehowse's post.  Your chosen source reported on that date that "...people [in Wuhan] had been diagnosed with pneumonia, the cause of which is unknown..."

There was no reference to this being a viral disease, and no reference to "worrying pockets around the globe". In that, it confirms the information I've quoted from my sources.

Furthermore, your other chosen source...

Sydney Morning Herald 22 January 2020 FRONT PAGE article (print edition, so printed evening of 21 January 2020)

...While scientists say they have unlocked the genetic code of the virus in 'record time', with co-operation from China, it is still unclear how rapidly the illness will spread. ..... At least four cases have been reported outside China so far, in Japan, Thailand and South Korea.

...confirms that into the third week of January 2020 it was still "unclear how rapidly the illness will spread" and that only 4 cases had been reported outside China - none of which were in Spain, let alone Seville.

I assume if Australian citizens were in peril due to a pandemic in Seville on 21 January 2020 the SMH would have reported the number of cases in Seville in its 22 January 2020 edition. 

This source of yours again confirms my original point. It was not common knowledge in January 2020 (let alone the first few days of that month) that SARS-Cov2 would become a global pandemic with the number of cases rapidly increasing globally due to asymptomatic transmission. At that point in time the expert scientists didn't even know it was SARS-Cov2.

I am providing first hand information to support a fellow RChatter's first hand information.  That does not invalidate your official secondary sources.

We have the problem however, that both cannot be correct.

It is like someone claiming "first hand information" of having an 1820 GRO death certificate, when we all know that "official secondary sources" confirm that civil registration by the GRO commenced in 1837. We would all recognise that as an impossibility.

Continued....

[majm]

And even more golly gosh ....

...continuation.

I note also that the Prime Minister of Australia on 31 January 2020 Australian Eastern Summertime (so almost half a day ahead of GMT,) announced that the international border with China and Australia was being closed.

So Australia imposed travel restrictions at the end of January, but only between China and Australia, not the rest of the World.

Which, for the UK, would have been pointless as research has shown the bulk of 'seed' cases in the UK were from people traveling back to the UK from European countries, not from China. Only a total ban on all people traveling to the UK without quarantine would have worked.

We can agree - with hindsight - that would have been an excellent idea, but socially and politically unacceptable, and utterly impracticable.

These are the numbers of people arriving in the UK (just those by air) in the relevant months. Where would we have quarantined them all?

Table 1: Passengers arriving to the UK by air
Air arrivals   % of whom: British nationals
January 2020   7,082,000   41%
February 2020   6,804,900   51%
March 2020   3,815,300   58%
April 2020   112,300   56%

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-relating-to-passenger-arrivals-since-the-covid-19-outbreak-february-2021/statistics-relating-to-passenger-arrivals-since-the-covid-19-outbreak-february-2021

[majm]

Just in case .... heres what I wrote ....

Sydney Morning Herald January 6, 2020, page 23
Infection outbreak in Wuhan
A Mysterious lung infection in the central Chinese city of Wuhan is being monitored by the World Health Organisation, which said it’s in active communication with its counterparts in China, where an investigation is under way to determine the cause.

The United Nations agency activated its incident-management system at the country, regional and global level and is standing ready to launch  broader response if it’s needed, said the WHO’s regional office in Manila, Philippines.

As of Friday, 44 people had been diagnosed with pneumonia, the cause of which is unknown, the Wuhan Municipal health Commission said in a statement.  That’s up from 27 three days earlier.  Eleven people are in serious condition.

Some of the infected worked at a fresh seafood and produce market in the city.

“China has extensive capacity to respond to public health events and is responding proactively and rapidly to the current incident in Wuhan – isolating patients, tracing close contacts, cleaning up the market, and searching for the cause and for additional cases,” the WHO said.

All the patients are being treated under quarantine, according to the commission.   Bloomberg.

So may I note that :
I am presuming that ‘Bloomberg’ would be the media source that the SMH resourced at the time.   If so, it is likely that other news media also carried similar info in that first week of January 2020 to many localities around the globe.   It is sensible for a fair minded person on hearing this type of news to consider that the mysterious lung infection mentioned in those early January 2020 media reports may be serious and could even be akin to the Spanish Flu pandemic post WWI. 

Further, may I please apologise to RChat for this sidetracking of this thread.

JM    ADD "Friday" in the newspaper would be referring to Friday 3 January 2020, which in turn supports mowsehowse's post to which I initially posted supporting her information.  And from WHO on 5 January 2020
https://www.who.int/csr/don/05-january-2020-pneumonia-of-unkown-cause-china/en/   And from that link may I briefly note that
So on 5 January 2020 WHO was reporting that :
On 31 December 2019, the WHO China Country Office was informed of case of pneumonia etiology (unknown cause) detected in Wuhan City…. As of 3 Janujary 2020, a total of 44 patients with pneumonia …. Of the 44 cases reported, 11 are severely ill, …. On 1 January 2020, WHO requested further information from national authorities….

[Nick_Ips]

Just in case .... heres what I wrote ....

In case you've taken offence that I haven't quoted your full posts - I get a warning message if a post exceeds the forum's maximum character count.  I couldn't have quoted you in full and responded to the points you made without spanning over multiple posts... as it was I had to split it into two.

I also understand it to be good forum etiquette to only quote what is necessary for the point being made (where the ability to edit quotes is available) rather than quote verbatim.

[majm]

Mate,  I have not taken offence, in fact I have not even got to the front gate yet ....

I continue to be 'golly gosh'' over your ongoing theme that somehow reporting a first hand account by a regular RChatter and then a second RChatter reads it and is drawn to offer a separate but supporting first hand account so that both  those first hand accounts, which chronologically refer to matters that are clearly predating your own research by a number of days, equates to some kind of failure of the basic tenet in genealogy by both mowsehowse and myself.....  may I assure you that providing first hand accounts is not a failure to understand the fundamentals of recording history. 

Simply put : First Hand info by definition predates official records. 

JM

[majm]

May I please, yet again, apologise to RChat for this side tracking of this thread on the Stay Safe board.

JM