How is the Tory government doing?

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Every care home outbreak was tested - that's why they knew they had a Covid outbreak.

They knew there was an outbreak when people got ill and died.
Testing for people being discharged into care homes only commenced on April 15th and that was in very small numbers.
There was no testing in care homes for months and care home staff only became eligible for testing on 29th April and they were actually tested in the weeks and months after that. Regular testing in care homes didn't even begin to be rolled out until July.
By the 7th of August there were already 29,542 excess deaths in care homes (source BMC)

Everything the government finally did to alleviate the care home crisis was a reaction to the unpalatable figures the public was seeing rather than proactive policy - which is why it was too little too late - the vast majority of care home tests occurred after tens of thousands of people had already died.
The figures used in the report are nonsense and you know it.
Too much Daily Fail is a bad thing.

Jesus are you really this stupid?

Let us start at the hospital.

Hospitals have been taking in Covid cases right from the start - yes?

How do they KNOW they are Covid cases - because they have been tested as such - yes?

So the hospital genome sequence is known at that time.

Ok now let us look at the care homes.

People have died with Covid in care homes - yes?

How do we know that - because they have been tested as such - yes?

So the care home genome sequence is then known at that point.

What the report has done is to see which care home residents have been discharged from hospital BEFORE the care home Covid deaths occured and simply see if the Covid genome sequence at the care home matches the genome sequence from the hospital at the time.

The process isn't reliant at all on whether discharged hospital patients had been tested or not before being sent to their care homes - the process used 'catches' all discharged from hospitals to care homes.  The process matches the genome sequence at the time in the hospital with what the genome sequence outbreak in the care home was - if they matched then that is where it was seeded from, if it didn't it couldn't possibly have come from there and must have got to the care home by another mean - ie care workers based in the community.

The report was commisioned by Whitty's deputy in her role as chair of a SAGE sub group.  She put her name to it by 'backing' the findings at a government daily briefing to the nation - this isn't a political con attempt or subterfuge or whatever it is you believe in that head of yours.

There may well have been 29,542 excess deaths in the care homes BUT hospital admissions only led to a very small fraction of them as is shown in the 'DNA' (genome sequencing) profiling that has been made.

Fwiw I've told you before I don't read the Mail or any other paper and if I did I certainly wouldn't believe everything I read in them.

Maybe if you took the same approach to social media you wouldn't be spouting anything like the shit and hatred that you do.

I won't be holding my breath though.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Unfortunately you’re more bothered about tying to get one over Lust than actually taking the time to check what you’re saying.

Here’s how the NCA describe testing in care homes:

‘Again this approach to testing was very limited, with local teams only required to test up to (and in practice often less than) 5 symptomatic resident in any care home, with the outcome of that needing only 2 positive tests to declare an outbreak. At that point no further testing of residents was carried out for 28 days. This meant that firstly residents discharged to care homes were not in any way guaranteed to be part of the testing regime in care homes, and secondly that anyone who had acquired COVID within hospital and was asymptomatic would not have been picked up within this testing regime. These are points of fact.’

Do you understand why that limits the data so significantly? Anyone with an appreciation of data would look at that and see why the report is not foolproof. Unless you think the NCA are lying about the conditions in which tests were administered?

My debate was solely with you, nothing to do with Wanderlust before he decided to add his utterings to my posts on the matter.

And if you want to back a pressure groups view against a SAGE commissioned research into this matter Chaired by Dr Jenny Harries OBE,  and whose findings she backed nationally in public, then that's your choice.

Fwiw this is Dr Harries CV - impressive wouldn't you say?

I would.

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/jenny-harries

As for what NCA states above, forgive me if I'm reading it wrongly but doesn't it state that there has to be two positive Covid tests before an care home outbreak is called - if so there would have been positive tests for genome sequening availablity then - would it not?

And if people in care homes had started to die all of a sudden from Covid symptoms then wouldn't you expect the 'local teams' to have been called in to do tests on the other residents and staff?  

If so genome sequencing from any positive results found would again become available - would it not?

Also note the testing period is every 28 days between care home testing, outbreak or no outbreak meaning if there hasn't been an outbreak in that time nobody returning from hospital would had caused one and if there was before the 28 days were up, then in all likelihood the local testing team would have been called to test remaing residents and staff and any positive tests found would have again been available for genome sequencing and matching to hospitals?

Unfortunately sluffy this government has revealed a vast willingness to 'massage' facts and reports in order to cast themselves in a better light.

Make no mistake I am seriously impressed by Harries as well as Whitty but in truth a government issued report is not one I would accept as 'gospel' at the best of times let alone in a major crisis. I don't trust Cummings as far as I could pick up and throw the Palace of Westminster but the same goes for Boris and the at best incompetent clowns around him.

In truth the mechanics of testing are of little relevance here since the fact is the pandemic was pretty much unstoppable once it left 'ground zero' (Wuhan Province if that really was the point of origin.) Scientists all over the world have been predicting something like this ever since the Spanish Influenza outbreak of 1918 and they're not shy about saying it WILL happen again in the future.

The problem is the public and politicians tend to have a short memory and once we go back to 'normal' many people will assume it's all over and nothing to worry about ever again. Unfortunately CoVid 19 is only one of a plethora of rapidly mutating viruses that are out there and as yet we cannot cure a single one of them.

All of us need to be very, very aware of that last point. As of today medical science knows zero cures for any virus. Where SARS (covid is actually a variant of SARS) is concerned vaccines are useful but only for a certain time since most viruses mutate so quickly that a vaccine which is 100% effective today is likely to be utterly usless a year from now since the disease it's meant to prevent has changed form so radically. We've already seen multiple variants of -19 and we'll certainly see more before this thing is truly over. What worries me is Boris and other politicians are claiming victory now when I fear this battle has only just begun.

In truth I genuinely fear it won't be our generation that sees Covid under control and maybe even our children will have to wait a long time before it is.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:Unfortunately sluffy this government has revealed a vast willingness to 'massage' facts and reports in order to cast themselves in a better light.

Make no mistake I am seriously impressed by Harries as well as Whitty but in truth a government issued report is not one I would accept as 'gospel' at the best of times let alone in a major crisis. I don't trust Cummings as far as I could pick up and throw the Palace of Westminster but the same goes for Boris and the at best incompetent clowns around him.

In truth the mechanics of testing are of little relevance here since the fact is the pandemic was pretty much unstoppable once it left 'ground zero' (Wuhan Province if that really was the point of origin.) Scientists all over the world have been predicting something like this ever since the Spanish Influenza outbreak of 1918 and they're not shy about saying it WILL happen again in the future.

The problem is the public and politicians tend to have a short memory and once we go back to 'normal' many people will assume it's all over and nothing to worry about ever again. Unfortunately CoVid 19 is only one of a plethora of rapidly mutating viruses that are out there and as yet we cannot cure a single one of them.

All of us need to be very, very aware of that last point. As of today medical science knows zero cures for any virus. Where SARS (covid is actually a variant of SARS) is concerned vaccines are useful but only for a certain time since most viruses mutate so quickly that a vaccine which is 100% effective today is likely to be utterly usless a year from now since the disease it's meant to prevent has changed form so radically. We've already seen multiple variants of -19 and we'll certainly see more before this thing is truly over. What worries me is Boris and other politicians are claiming victory now when I fear this battle has only just begun.

In truth I genuinely fear it won't be our generation that sees Covid under control and maybe even our children will have to wait a long time before it is.

Quite right - ongoing mutation was discussed earlier and remains an ongoing threat. That said it's part of COBRAs remit to prepare for the eventuality of a pandemic and there were some revealing leaks that specific warnings given in 2016 were not heeded and budgets for preparation were cut not enhanced.

Are we talking about the same Dr Jennie Harries who said we didn't need to test, test, test, because we were a first world country, and that we didn't need to cancel the Cheltenham Festival, because there was no strong danger?
She later said, 'We are an international exemplar of preparedness.'
If you say so love.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:Unfortunately sluffy this government has revealed a vast willingness to 'massage' facts and reports in order to cast themselves in a better light.

Make no mistake I am seriously impressed by Harries as well as Whitty but in truth a government issued report is not one I would accept as 'gospel' at the best of times let alone in a major crisis. I don't trust Cummings as far as I could pick up and throw the Palace of Westminster but the same goes for Boris and the at best incompetent clowns around him.

In truth the mechanics of testing are of little relevance here since the fact is the pandemic was pretty much unstoppable once it left 'ground zero' (Wuhan Province if that really was the point of origin.) Scientists all over the world have been predicting something like this ever since the Spanish Influenza outbreak of 1918 and they're not shy about saying it WILL happen again in the future.

The problem is the public and politicians tend to have a short memory and once we go back to 'normal' many people will assume it's all over and nothing to worry about ever again. Unfortunately CoVid 19 is only one of a plethora of rapidly mutating viruses that are out there and as yet we cannot cure a single one of them.

All of us need to be very, very aware of that last point. As of today medical science knows zero cures for any virus. Where SARS (covid is actually a variant of SARS) is concerned vaccines are useful but only for a certain time since most viruses mutate so quickly that a vaccine which is 100% effective today is likely to be utterly usless a year from now since the disease it's meant to prevent has changed form so radically. We've already seen multiple variants of -19 and we'll certainly see more before this thing is truly over. What worries me is Boris and other politicians are claiming victory now when I fear this battle has only just begun.

In truth I genuinely fear it won't be our generation that sees Covid under control and maybe even our children will have to wait a long time before it is.

Peter you are of course entitled to your views, but as a long serving ex-public servant I simply don't share them.  

Reports might be shelved or partially reported but I've never known anyone told what the outcome is to be before the report is undertaken, nor anyone told to alter the findings once the report has been completed (or during the undertaking of the report).

Indeed this report is in the public domain, I've linked to it above, and it's methodology, sources and results are all there to be scrutinised.

I've yet to see any authoritive body such as the Office for National Statistics challenge the report - and the report is a government document and so under the remit of the ONS's purview.

The report comes from SAGE - and under the Chairmanship of Harries and de facto Whitty, Van-Tan, etc - do you really doubt it's authenticity or its honesty?

I certainly don't.

As for rediness for the pandemic, would it surprise you to know that the UK were considered the second best in the world just months before the pandemic struck?

https://www.ghsindex.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2019-Global-Health-Security-Index.pdf

The report is from the NTI and Johns Hopkins University (the one that gives the world reports on Covid stats) and published in October 2019.

Don't believe all you hear from the likes of Wanderlust and social media!

Vietnam has just detected a new mutation which spreads quickly by air. Apparently it appears to be a cross between the Indian variant and the Kent variant.
The one I'm worried about is the one that prevents humans from creating antibodies mentioned previously.

wanderlust wrote:Vietnam has just detected a new mutation which spreads quickly by air. Apparently it appears to be a cross between the Indian variant and the Kent variant.
The one I'm worried about is the one that prevents humans from creating antibodies mentioned previously.

This was reported on Saturday -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-57296803

Early indications believe that as AstraZeneca and Pfizer are effective (after two doses) against both Indian and Kent that this mutation should not cause any major problems.

No doubt we will find out for definite in due course.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:Unfortunately sluffy this government has revealed a vast willingness to 'massage' facts and reports in order to cast themselves in a better light.

Make no mistake I am seriously impressed by Harries as well as Whitty but in truth a government issued report is not one I would accept as 'gospel' at the best of times let alone in a major crisis.

I have no issue with the report itself but where I take issue is with Sluffy's intentional cherry picking of bits which he seems to feel will further his case that feeds his hatred for anyone or anything that questions either the government or his self-importance.

No mention of the extensive list of disclaimers that demonstrate where the data is lacking. No comment on how the data was collected. No comment on the criteria employed. No comment on the timing of data collection. No comment on the disparity between this report's finding and the National Audit Office's (also the government) figures.

As usual he just picks the bits that suit his argument without analysing what lies behind them - which is inevitably an entree into several pages of self-righteous waffle.

wanderlust wrote:

luckyPeterpiper wrote:Unfortunately sluffy this government has revealed a vast willingness to 'massage' facts and reports in order to cast themselves in a better light.

Make no mistake I am seriously impressed by Harries as well as Whitty but in truth a government issued report is not one I would accept as 'gospel' at the best of times let alone in a major crisis.

I have no issue with the report itself but where I take issue is with Sluffy's intentional cherry picking of bits which he seems to feel will further his case that feeds his hatred for anyone or anything that questions either the government or his self-importance.

No mention of the extensive list of disclaimers that demonstrate where the data is lacking. No comment on how the data was collected. No comment on the criteria employed. No comment on the timing of data collection. No comment on the disparity between this report's finding and the National Audit Office's (also the government) figures.

As usual he just picks the bits that suit his argument without analysing what lies behind them - which is inevitably an entree into several pages of self-righteous waffle.

Hahaha!!!!

You are utterly bonkers mate!!!



Best laugh I've had in ages!

I've not cherry picked anything - I've simply stated the reports findings.

I've linked to the report for everyone to see and read - I've hid nothing - it is all there to be seen!!!

My "several pages of selfrighteous waffle" are not waffle or me being selfrigheous at all but rather me having to explain the report in simple terms so that Wanderlust could begin to understand what it was saying - I even had to bring it down to a 'Janet and John' type level before he eventually got it!

I'm certainly not the one who is prejudicial and hate fueled against the government and sees everything they do as evil and corrupt!

As for me feeling self-important, yeah right!

I must really be a sad old bastard if my life has been reduced to seeking some sort of recognition and credibility on a obscure footy forum with about ten regular posters on it, all of whom I don't even know from Adam!

I'm certainly not the one on here looking for some sort of validation of my life from absolute strangers - you're the one doing that ffs!

And if Wanderlust or anyone want's to believe the report is "politically motivated" and involves "Hancock's manipulation of the data" then that is up to him...

wanderlust wrote:If anything this report not only exposes faulty - and perhaps politically motivated reasoning - but also shines a light at the appalling testing levels and Hancock's manipulation of the data.

...clearly laughable though and simply (yet again) shows his blinkered and completely unhinged view of all things Tory.

And the best of all he now tells us this!!!

wanderlust wrote:I have no issue with the report itself...

Make your mind up!!!!

wanderlust wrote:I have no issue with the report itself...

...because unlike you, the report didn't claim that only 280 odd deaths were caused by untested patients being returned to care homes did it?

sluffy I don't trust social media at all. In fact the anti-vax crow and the conspiracy nuts are the only people who can make Boris and his ilk look credible.

No, my issue is that the way this report has been handled and overseen worries me. For one thing there are just too many lies from Boris and his cronies that they'v been publically called on and blithely ignored. Up until now they've got away with it and to a large degree the pandemic has actually helped them deflect attention away from the disaster that is Brexit.

I do trust the authors of the report and if the stated methodology is entirely accurate then I don't have any real issues with the content. My fear is that thanks to the circus surrounding Cummings and who said what to who coupled with the 'official' story changing almost every day that some parts of the report have been 'desk drawered' for want of a better phrase. By that I don't mean openly suppressed, I mean put away and since no one knows those parts exist no one asks to see them so the government isn't actually lying when it says it didn't refuse anyone access to it.

Perhaps I am being a little paranoid but in the wake of the recent revelations concerning the Hillsborough disaster and Bloody Sunday I have lost a great deal of trust in 'official reports'. Face it sluffy, the Government does have a provable track record in outright lying to people in order to either save face or hide injustice. Murdoch and his ilk are more than happy to help and frankly the Labour Party are totally useless at penetrating this smokescreen.

What bothers me most right now on all this is not what we know, it's what we believe to be true that might well turn out not to be. I can't stand Cummings or his beliefs and behaviour but I think in the current circumstances he is a little more credible than Boris and Rishi.

Morality and politics are now completely divorced chez Johnson and the Tories. 

They know the political cost of everything and the value of nothing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57314537

wanderlust wrote:

wanderlust wrote:I have no issue with the report itself...

...because unlike you, the report didn't claim that only 280 odd deaths were caused by untested patients being returned to care homes did it?

Of course IT DID you moron otherwise I wouldn't be saying it!!!!

You clearly haven't even read the report have you???

Page 14 -

From 30 January to 12 October 2020, we identified 43,398 (8.4%) care home residents
who tested positive for SARs-CoV-2, with laboratory confirmation, and death was
reported in 34.0% (n=13,795). This analysis identified 97 (1.6%) care home outbreaks
due to hospital associated seeding, involving 804 care home residents, and 286 (2.1%)
deaths.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:sluffy I don't trust social media at all. In fact the anti-vax crowd and the conspiracy nuts are the only people who can make Boris and his ilk look credible.

No, my issue is that the way this report has been handled and overseen worries me. For one thing there are just too many lies from Boris and his cronies that they've been publically called on and blithely ignored. Up until now they've got away with it and to a large degree the pandemic has actually helped them deflect attention away from the disaster that is Brexit.

I do trust the authors of the report and if the stated methodology is entirely accurate then I don't have any real issues with the content. My fear is that thanks to the circus surrounding Cummings and who said what to who coupled with the 'official' story changing almost every day that some parts of the report have been 'desk drawered' for want of a better phrase. By that I don't mean openly suppressed, I mean put away and since no one knows those parts exist no one asks to see them so the government isn't actually lying when it says it didn't refuse anyone access to it.

Perhaps I am being a little paranoid but in the wake of the recent revelations concerning the Hillsborough disaster and Bloody Sunday I have lost a great deal of trust in 'official reports'. Face it sluffy, the Government does have a provable track record in outright lying to people in order to either save face or hide injustice. Murdoch and his ilk are more than happy to help and frankly the Labour Party are totally useless at penetrating this smokescreen.

What bothers me most right now on all this is not what we know, it's what we believe to be true that might well turn out not to be. I can't stand Cummings or his beliefs and behaviour but I think in the current circumstances he is a little more credible than Boris and Rishi.

Peter this report has nothing to do with Boris or Cummings - this as come from SAGE as a 'fact findig report' and has been put in the public domain by Whitty's one time deputy.

A report was also asked for separately by the Public Accounts Committee - which means basically that Parliament asked for it (and Parliament is one of the three independant powers that government is based on in their role as checks and balance of the other two - executive and judiciary - Boris and Cummings would be part of the executive).

They did so because the National Audit Office had reported 25,000 patients were returned from hospitals to their care homes to free up hospital beds at the start of the pandemic and that there was a subsequent large rise in care home deaths.

It was naturally assumed by most people (even myself) that the one led directly to the other.

The report however by using scientific geonome sequencing (think DNA profiling if you will) shows that contrary to that widely held belief (which is clearly still held by many) the vast bulk of contagion came from the community in the form of infected care workers, many of whom were agency staff and worked in multiple care homes at the same time.

The irony being that the 25,000 patients could all have been tested negative before being discharged from hospital and it still would not have changed in any significant way the coming tragically high care home death toll because the vast bulk of it was unkowingly brought to the residents by the very care workers there to help them.

Maybe there is a case to answer as to why the residential carers were not kept in isolation with the care home residents and that every agency care worker was tested for Covid before they entered the homes but this report clearly shows the vast bulk of patients discharged to their care homes simply didn't bring Covid with them.

Covid was brought to them from the community by people working at or visiting the homes.

Important to check the detail behind the report though Peter.

The 286 figure only counts outbreaks, cases and deaths confirmed by testing - as you’d expect. We know that especially in the early days, tests were not that easy to come by. So they were rationed at care homes to a maximum of 5 per home - and only of symptomatic patients.

So the report should be treated as a theory, as the gaps in data are too large to make the theory conclusive.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Important to check the detail behind the report though Peter.

The 286 figure only counts outbreaks, cases and deaths confirmed by testing - as you’d expect. We know that especially in the early days, tests were not that easy to come by. So they were rationed at care homes to a maximum of 5 per home - and only of symptomatic patients.

So the report should be treated as a theory, as the gaps in data are too large to make the theory conclusive.

No it doesn't you still clearly don't understand the report do you?

I don't know how to explain it simpler than the Janet and John level one I gave to Wanderlust.

Each and every care home was tested for Covid every 28 days.

The people tested were symptomatic - that means they had the symptoms that they had caught Covid.

If two or more were positive a care home outbreak was declared.

So the genome sequence became available.

ANY residents recently discharged from hospitals were then identified and those hospitals current Covid geonome sequence was compared to the care home geonome sequence.  The hospitals geonome sequence was known because they already were dealing with Covid patients in their isoloation wards.

If the hospital and care home geonome sequence matched then it was certain that the outbreak in the care home was seeded from the hospitals - if they didn't match then it simply could not have been the hospitals that seeded the care home outbreak.

If the care home outbreak was identified to be in existence at the time then the NCF statement would be true...

This meant that firstly residents discharged to care homes were not in any way guaranteed to be part of the testing regime in care homes, and secondly that anyone who had acquired COVID within hospital and was asymptomatic would not have been picked up within this testing regime.

...BUT completely irrelevent because it is the care home covid geonome sequence that is matched to the hospital's geonome sequence - meaning that if it matched it simply didn't matter if the returned care home resident had been tested or not because the match and link to the hospital would had been proved anyway and if it didn't match then it meant a community seeded outbrake was already in the home at the time and the outbreak and had spread even if the returned resident had caught covid from the hospital.

Basically the fire had already started and the returnee may have caught covid in hospital but certainly didn't seed or cause the outbreak that had already broken out there.

If there was NO outbreak at the time of the 'local testing teams' visit until they returned 28 days later then clearly no hospital or community setting had caused one.

And if one started after the local teams visit and before their return in 28 days, then clearly they would have returned and tested residents to see who had it and needed isolation and treatment and those who didn't.


I know you are just playing games with me TROY but if the report was 'only a theory' then why aren't the likes of Starmer, Maugham and everyone else who have been so vocal about the government rubbishing it then?

Only a small self-interested pressure group has raised any concern about the reports findings and this pressure group is so obscure that you keep crediting its report to the National Care Assosiation when in fact it is from a completely seperate and smaller body the National Care Forum.

Do you really believe Dr Jenny Harries the Chief Exec of the UK Health Security Agency would speak to the nation on a report she believed to be only a "theory" with "large data gaps"???

I most certainly don't.

What the UK Health Security Agency does

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) will be responsible for planning, preventing and responding to external health threats, and providing intellectual, scientific and operational leadership at national and local level, as well as on the global stage.

UKHSA will ensure the nation can respond quickly and at greater scale to deal with pandemics and future threats.

UKHSA is an executive agency, sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-health-security-agency

It’s glaringly obvious where the gaps are Sluffy? There wasn’t enough testing - as we knew at the time and you even detail yourself? So individual outbreaks cannot be attributed with the confidence you are attempting to suggest.

If you can’t understand that I’m afraid it’s your problem.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:It’s glaringly obvious where the gaps are Sluffy? There wasn’t enough testing - as we knew at the time and you even detail yourself? So individual outbreaks cannot be attributed with the confidence you are attempting to suggest.

If you can’t understand that I’m afraid it’s your problem.

Hahaha, it's my problem is it!!!

Ok, then we will see soon or later, whenever the inquiry in the deaths in care homes is undertaken - and it will have to be done because something like a third of all Covid deaths I believe occured there - what the report findings says.

Seeing that all I've done is quote the SAGE report based on the science, I feel very confident that not only it will become part of the inquiry but it will also be accepted as a factual and true account of what actually happened.

I'm not sure what you mean about me 'detailing' myself about testing?

I've explained several times now that the report picks up ALL patients discharged from hospitals to the care homes whether they were tested or not and conversely explained why the testing in care homes as reported by the NCF was sufficient to pick up and identify Covid care home outbreaks.

For your information the NCF are just one of a number of organisations under the umbrella of the Care Provider Alliance.  For the record the CPA, the NCF's 'parent' organisation has NOT questioned the reports findings.

https://careprovideralliance.org.uk/press-releases
https://twitter.com/CPA_SocialCare?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Similarly the NCA who you misattributed the NCF's quote to have also NOT questions the reports findings either (and their Chair Nadra Ahmed even told Question Time that this issue was not a resigning matter for Hancock!)

https://nationalcareassociation.org.uk/news-events
https://twitter.com/NationalCareAsc?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor


I would have though if the report was so 'glaringly' flawed as you and Wanderlust are so desperate to make out, then there would have been  widespread condemnation of it, wouldn't you???

I think the fact there hasn't been vitually none, would then have to be your problem  to explain away I'm affraid.

Unless of course you know better than the respective Care Home representive bodies...

The report picks up cases that have been tested, it’s there in writing. Claiming that every single case is picked up is patently ridiculous. But you aren’t looking for accuracy; just spin that suits your narrative.