Mayo Clinic does not endorse companies or products. Advertising revenue supports our not-for-profit mission.
Advertising & Sponsorship
Check out these best-sellers and special offers on books and newsletters from Mayo Clinic.
The official list of Covid-19 symptoms should be expanded as the existing one could “miss many Covid-19 cases”, experts have argued.
The UK should follow other countries and include a broader range of symptoms, according to a group of scientists. Classic symptoms of Covid-19, listed on the NHS website, are a high temperature, a new continuous cough and/or a loss or change to a person’s sense of smell or taste.
Advertisement
But the most commonly reported symptoms by people taking part in the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Covid-19 Infection Survey are cough, headache and fatigue.
The latest ONS release shows 61% of people who tested positive reported symptoms. Of these, 42% had a cough, 39% reported headache and 38% reported fatigue, according to the ONS. Muscle ache was reported by a quarter of people and 32% reported having a sore throat. Meanwhile a third reported fever and 21% reported loss of smell and 15% reported loss of taste.
Advertisement
A separate study – the Zoe Covid Symptom study – recently reported that a headache, sore throat and runny nose are now the most commonly reported symptoms. These are most likely symptoms of the Delta variant.
Advertisement
Writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Dr Alex Crozier and colleagues – including Professor Calum Semple who is a member of Sage – suggest that limiting testing to only people with fever, cough and a change in taste or smell could “miss or delay identification of many Covid cases”.
They suggest this could “hamper efforts to interrupt transmission” of the virus. The group argue that increasing the symptom list could improve Britain’s pandemic response by expanding the criteria for self-isolation and eligibility for symptomatic testing.
The “narrow” case definition “limits” the early detection of contagious people, which restricts the efforts of the Test and Trace programme, they say. Non-traditional symptoms “often manifest earlier”, they added.
The US Centres for Disease Control lists 11 more symptoms than the UK, and the World Health Organisation includes nine more. The testing capabilities are now able to facilitate people with a broader spectrum of symptoms, they added. They say testing people with a single non-specific symptom could overwhelm capacity in the UK, but “combinations of symptoms could be used to help identify more cases sooner without overwhelming testing capacity”.
Advertisement
The authors continue: “The UK’s decision to adopt a narrow case definition was based on ease of communication, avoiding confusion with other infections and preserving testing capacity. This situation is now different — testing capacity is high.
“Covid-19 is associated with a wide range of symptoms. Many patients do not experience the UK’s official case-defining symptoms, initially, or ever, and other symptoms often manifest earlier. Limiting the symptomatic testing to those with these official symptoms will miss or delay identification of many Covid-19 cases, hampering efforts to interrupt transmission.
“Expanding the clinical case definition of Covid−19, the criteria for self-isolation, and eligibility for symptomatic testing could improve the UK’s pandemic response.
The Department of Health and Social Care has been approached for comment by PA Media. We will update this piece if there is a response.
Another PMQs, another tone deaf performance from Boris Johnson. Last week, he appeared to belittle Keir Starmer’s concern over low rape conviction rates as mere “jabber”. This week, he seemed to dismiss anger over Matt Hancock’s Covid rule breach as “Westminster bubble” chatter.
In both cases, allies of Johnson say such attacks are unfair as it was clear he was hitting back at Starmer rather than the issues he raised. Well, upto a point, Lord Copper. In failing to separate out the issues, with the change in register needed for each, the PM has no one to blame but himself for the criticism.
Starmer has long been advised by older hands on the Labour benches to mix up his bowling speed, shifting from fast balls to slower off-spin, and it worked today. By contrast, Johnson stuck to his usual attack-as-best-form-of-defence tactic, and it failed.
First, the Labour leader ridiculed Johnson’s claim to have sacked Hancock a day after keeping him (Starmer must have been tempted to accuse the PM of being ‘Captain Hindsight’ on that one). Then he changed the tone to raise the fury of the parents of a dying cancer patient who was denied hospital visits the week before Hancock broke the social distancing rules with his mistress.
When Starmer quoted Ollie Bibby’s mother – “I’m livid. We did everything we were told to do and the man that made the rules didn’t” – Johnson should have spotted it was time to change gear himself and issue a heartfelt apology. If indeed he had sacked Hancock, as he implied, surely it wouldn’t be difficult to condemn his former health secretary’s actions?
Instead, the tone deaf PM gave a perfunctory answer about sharing the grief of families like Ollie’s, before launching swiftly into his charge that Starmer was raising matters that were the stuff of the ‘Westminster bubble’. Yet the whole point about the Hancock story was its reach went way beyond that bubble, that’s precisely why Tory MPs successfully pressured him to quit.
It wasn’t just the jaw-dropping photos and video of Hancock in a clinch that ensured this story cut through outside SW1 (the test is always whether the WhatsApps of MPs’ non-political friends pick it up and boy did they in spades). It was the simple, rank hypocrisy of the man who set the rules breaking them.
Add in the contrast between his workplace affair and the deadly seriousness of people forced to miss funerals, and this was way bigger than a bit of bubble trouble. The PM sounded like a man who believed the political wound had healed after just four days, but Starmer picked at the scab to reveal what lay beneath.
All those couples whose weddings have been reduced to small events, or whose family and friends have been barred from hugging or dancing at a reception, won’t have seen the Hancock clinch as hilarious. Wrecking your own marriage is a personal car-crash, wrecking thousands of other marriages while snogging your lover is public policy suicide.
The Hancock hypocrisy charge is also attaching to Johnson too. Brides-to-be are furious that the PM can have a garden party to watch the football but they can’t have a proper wedding reception. You can’t sing in church, but you can sing Three Lions in a stadium. You can’t go on holiday, but rich businessmen can arrive from abroad without quarantine.
Johnson’s failure to adapt his PMQs responses will fuel Labour’s charge that his complacency proves the Tories are a tired party that have been in power for too long. But it also risked a total lack of empathy that will worry his MPs more, especially when the PM’s X-factor has been his ability to channel and give voice to voters’ concerns.
And given he already has a reputation for being economical with the actualite (to quote the late Alan Clark), trying to spin his way out of an obvious failure to sack Hancock was ill-advised.
On Tuesday, the SNP’s Ian Blackford got into trouble with the Speaker when he declared: “The truth and this government are distant strangers, and that should come as no surprise when we remember the prime minister has been sacked not once but twice for lying.”
Now it’s demonstrably true that Johnson was fired from the Times for making up a quote and later as a shadow minister for denying he had an affair. So when Speaker Hoyle urged a retraction from Blackford, saying “as we know, hon. Members would never lie”, it’s no wonder the SNP leader in Westminster ignored the plea and carried on regardless.
The other problem for the PM is that he’s now made a habit of using misleading statements in PMQs. Refusing to correct the record over his false claim that Labour voted against an NHS pay rise is one thing. But his consistent misuse of statistics is another entirely. And today there was yet another warning from the statistics watchdog about his statements about child poverty.
As we revealed on Wednesday, the UK Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) has written once more to get Johnson to use the right definitions, after he claimed last month that “we are also seeing fewer households now with children in poverty than 10 years ago”. The watchdog pointed out that while this may apply to ‘absolute’ poverty, the figures for relative poverty had got worse.
Most embarrassing to No.10 is that the regulator revealed it had raised this topic privately with the PM’s Downing Street briefing team, and still he kept on making statements that failed to show the full picture. There are clearly lies, damned lies and child poverty statistics.
It may just be down to Johnson’s slapdash nature, or to his failure to shift out of attack mode. Either way, he gives the impression of a PM who just can’t handle the truth. If he’s not careful, over time, the voters may decide on a sacking of their own.
DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS via Getty Images
Boris Johnson has been formally warned by the UK statistics regulator about his claim that child poverty has fallen over the past decade, HuffPost UK can reveal.
The Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) has written to Downing Street to raise Johnson’s use of statistics in prime minister’s question time last month.
The PM declared “we are also seeing fewer households now with children in poverty than 10 years ago”.
The OSR said that it had received complaints about the misleading nature of the claim, adding that on some measures child poverty had increased in recent years, not decreased.
“It would help aid public understanding if statements concerning child poverty were clear about which measure is being referred to, particularly where other measures present a different trend,” the watchdog said in its letter to No.10’s head of data science.
Campaigners have long warned that Johnson deliberately makes misleading statements about the poverty statistics.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) uses both relative poverty and absolute poverty measures, before and after housing costs.
Relative poverty covers households which have “less than 60% of contemporary median income”.
Absolute poverty is defined as households which have less than 60% of the median income in 2010/11 “held constant in real terms”.
Relative child poverty after housing costs rose from 3.6m when the Tories took office in 2010 to 4.2m in 2018/19.
But Johnson relies on the “absolute” child poverty measure which has dipped in 2019/20 to fall just below the 2010 figure.
Anna Feuchtwang, Chair of the End Child Poverty campaign and CEO of the National Children’s Bureau, said: “The prime minister’s misuse of child poverty statistics is neither fair or accurate.
“It’s simply not right to play down the misery of families swept into poverty and hide behind different statistical measures when answering difficult questions. The simple fact is that even by the government’s own measures, child poverty is rising and we need urgent action rather than game-playing by policymakers.
“The Office for Statistics Regulation has written to the prime minister again, calling for him to be clear on which measure of child poverty he is using in his statements to parliament.
“We hope this will prompt greater recognition from across government that child poverty is a real and present blight on many young lives.”
A government spokesperson said: “The prime minister was referring to absolute child poverty statistics between 2009/10 and 2019/20.
“These statistics show that the number of children in the UK living in poverty fell both before and after housing costs were taken into consideration.”
In its latest letter, the OSR’s Ed Humpherson suggested that he had decided to issue a fresh warning because the PM had continued to ignore previous attempts to engage with Downing Street.
“Over the last year, a number of concerns have been raised to us regarding the prime minister’s use of statistics on child poverty and in each case, we have brought this to the attention of the briefing team in No.10,” he wrote.
The OSR wrote in a blog: “Measuring poverty is complicated. There is no wrong measure but there is a wrong way of using the available measures – and that is to pick and choose which statistics to use based on what best suits the argument you happen to be making.
“It is important to look at all the data available and set the context when referring to statistics on poverty.”
Earlier this year, the Resolution Foundation forecast that the situation would get even worse, pointing out that higher unemployment and the removal of a £20 uplift in universal credit could lead to 400,000 more children ending up on the breadline, the biggest year-on-year rise in poverty rates since the 1980s.
Here is the letter in full from the UK Office for Statistics Regulation to Laura Gilbert, Director of Data Science, 10 Downing Street:
Dear Laura
Use of official statistics on child poverty in Prime Minister’s Questions
Over the last year, a number of concerns have been raised to us regarding the Prime Minister’s use of statistics on child poverty and in each case, we have brought this to the attention of the briefing team in No.10. Further concerns were raised to us following Prime Minister’s Questions on 26 May, where the Prime Minister said that “We are also seeing fewer households now with children in poverty than 10 years ago.”
As the Office for Statistics Regulation highlighted last year in a blog and more recently in our review of income-based poverty statistics, measuring poverty is complicated and different measures tell different parts of the story.
We are pleased to see some improvement in the way official statistics on child poverty are referred to in these statements. However, it would help aid public understanding if statements concerning child poverty were clear about which measure is being referred to, particularly where other measures present a different trend.
I am copying this letter to Alex Jones, Head of Data and Transformation for 10 Downing Street, and Steve Ellerd-Elliott, Head of Profession for Statistics at the Department for Work and Pensions.
Yours sincerely
Ed Humpherson
Director General for Regulation
Maybe it’s because Boris Johnson’s children are either too old or too young to be in school anymore. Maybe it’s because he’s more focused on rolling the dice on his July 19 freedom day. Maybe it’s because his education secretary lacks any real clout within the cabinet.
But whatever the reason, the growing anger among parents, pupils and teachers at the Covid chaos within schools right now is something any government would be wise to heed. New figures from the Department for Education laid bare the problem, with a massive 330,000 pupils forced to self-isolate in the past week.
The return of remote learning and home-schooling is difficult for the children but also for their parents, particularly if they’re losing income because they cannot go out to work. Just as important is the social loss incurred, with many missing those longed-for end-of-year trips, sports events and school productions.
And yet there is a solution. Schools have been taking part in clinical trials of a system of daily testing that prevents the need for Covid close contacts to automatically isolate at home. Instead of an entire class of 30, or even a whole year group, having to quarantine, only those who actually test positive have to stay home. Staff and pupils who test negative can turn up as normal.
The headteacher of Westhoughton High School in Bolton (yes, which was a Delta hotspot) revealed today just what a success the pilot had been. More than 500 pupils and staff had avoided having to isolate, with a huge 3,500 “saved learning hours” as a result.
The academic gains from classroom time are obvious. But I was struck most of all by Patrick Ottley-O’Connor’s remark, to Radio 4’s World At One, that “the mental health of students has been massively impacted positively by being able to stay in school”.
Fortunately, Sajid Javid has hinted he wants to act on such pilots. And sources in the DfE hint that from September such testing will be the norm. Yet many wonder why there isn’t any action right now. When asked if the government had given up on any changes for this term, the PM’s spokesman told us: “That’s not at all how I characterise it, obviously.” Except it wasn’t obvious.
The pilots will need assessing, but they have been running for several weeks and it’s worth asking why there hasn’t been a fast-tracked assessment for testing just as there was for vaccines. The JCVI managed to give the UK a head start on approval of vaccines precisely because it took a sensible view of risk.
The great irony about the current school testing inertia is that it was always the PM’s early preferred route out of the pandemic. It was mass testing that was his ‘moonshot’, even though in the end it was the Matt Hancock’s early gamble on vaccines that really reached for the stars (and don’t forget Dominic Cummings ridiculed Hancock for it last autumn).
Yet just as baffling for some Tory MPs has been the inertia around school catch-up policy too. Boris Johnson told us last June, a whole year ago, that there would be “a massive summer catch-up operation” for schools. (Spoiler: it did not materialise). In March, he said: “The legacy issue I think for me is education.” It was “an opportunity to make amends”, he said.
But as former catch-up czar Sir Kevan Collins made plain today, that promise has not yet been met. Collins’ evidence to the Education Committee was as politically devastating as it was patient and methodical. The cost-benefit analysis (£100bn and maybe £420bn could be lost in a hit to the economy from education losses) was overwhelming, even for a Treasury beancounter.
Ultra-reasonable, grounded in his own long experience in dealing with schools and social policy for children, he simply said the PM’s response had been “feeble” in the face of the enormity of the challenge. He pointed out he had presented his £15bn case for a longer school day to the PM, the chancellor and Gavin Williamson (and intriguingly Michael Gove too).
With only £1.4bn pledged so far, Collins said the PM’s signal of even more money later this year was not made in “bad faith”. His complaint was that later this year would be too late. And he squarely blamed the Treasury too for sticking to its spending review timetable (of November) instead of focusing on the school year timetable (starting in September).
As with school testing, this was about a lack of urgency. Children are on average two months behind in reading and three months behind in maths, and those averages mask even worse stats for the poorest kids. Collins pointed out that a child arriving from primary school to secondary next year could fall into a spiral of decline. With more textbooks, more subjects, the risk was “they don’t catch up” and instead go backwards.
Collins called for a 10-year spending strategy for schools, which is precisely the kind of bold ambition the Johnson government may need to run alongside similar ambitions for the NHS. Not for nothing has Labour’s new shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves made the £15bn catch-up funding her main spending pledge to date.
The Treasury has been privately dubious about Collins’ extra hours plan, suggesting teachers may not wear it. But the real obstacle may be the long-term nature of the hard cash needed. Because once you start spending real money to tackle educational inequalities, it can’t be a ‘one-off’ that you can then take away later.
Spending reviews are indeed usually the kind of place for such commitments. Yet when an emergency furlough scheme can be drafted (brilliantly by HMT officials) in such short order as it was last year, why not a ‘summer education plan’ to match the ‘winter economic plan’?
As I wrote last year, the pandemic response should not just be about lives and livelihoods, it should be about life chances. And if the PM can’t even deliver on what’s supposed to be his personal “legacy issue”, the public may wonder what happens to all those issues he doesn’t care about.
Aaron Chown – PA Images via Getty Images
A school that trialled a radical Covid testing regime has spared more than 500 pupils and staff from having to isolate at home, its headteacher has revealed.
Westhoughton High School in Bolton allows even “close contacts” of positive cases to keep on attending class, provided they can show negative daily lateral flow tests and negative PCR tests every five days.
Headteacher Patrick Ottley-O’Connor told the BBC there had been a “massively” positive impact on students’ mental health as well as on their ability to keep learning in person.
The school, which ended its government pilot scheme last Thursday, reported more than 3,500 “saved learning days” thanks to its system of allowing pupils to attend even if they were in the same class as someone who tested positive.
Under the clinical trial, only those staff and students who test positive are required to stay at home.
Others in their 30-strong “bubble” are allowed to keep on attending, with parental consent, as long as they have a negative lateral flow test for seven days.
On day two and day seven, they have to also show a negative PCR test. Pupils taking part in the scheme still have to stay at home in the evening and at weekends.
The success of the programme is sure to be pounced on by MPs and parents, many of whom are now calling for a more risk-based approach and the end of the practice of forcing a whole class to quarantine if one child contracts the virus.
Latest figures showed pupil absence due to Covid had hit a record high since classes went back in March, with more than 330,000 children in England forced to isolate at home in the past week.
Data from the Department for Education, covering England, shows that around one in 20 (5.1%) state school pupils did not attend class for Covid-19-related reasons on June 24, up from 3.3% on June 17 and 1.2% on June 10.
Health secretary Sajid Javid revealed on Monday that he had asked for the evidence from pilot schemes.
Ottley-O’Connor told BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme that “when we had the opportunity to take part in the clinical trial we jumped at it”.
“It’s really helped obviously the learning, but the mental health of students has been massively impacted positively by being able to stay in school.
“Two weeks ago within Bolton there were rising cases, I had two positive cases within staff and that affected 18 staff in total close contacts, myself included.
“But only those two people had to be at home, the rest of us could come in, do our daily testing in the morning…[and] test negative and continue our daily work.”
Shadow education secretary Kate Green said the latest absence figures showed the need for action.
“Ministers must work with their expert scientific advisers now to review the bubbles system ahead of the summer holidays to ensure as many children can be in the classroom as possible.”
Mayo Clinic does not endorse companies or products. Advertising revenue supports our not-for-profit mission.
Advertising & Sponsorship
Check out these best-sellers and special offers on books and newsletters from Mayo Clinic.
“For me, 19 July is not only the end of the line, but the start of an exciting new journey for our country.” Sajid Javid began his new career as health secretary with one of the upbeat travel metaphors that has become a verbal tic of this government.
Yet while Boris Johnson once talked of coming out of an Alpine tunnel and seeing “the sunshine and pasture ahead of us”, Javid’s more prosaic tone meant it felt like he was describing a bus replacement service. You get to the railway terminus then, er, you have a whole new journey by another means. Kinda.
When Sadiq Khan was elected Mayor of London in 2016, he joked to Javid: “You wait ages for a Pakistani bus driver’s son to come along, then two come along at once.” Javid has certainly proved politically very patient in waiting his turn for a recall to cabinet, and his Commons update on Covid was all about keeping the government show on the road.
Sounding much more bullish than Matt Hancock about the final end to lockdown, he upgraded recent caution about the Delta variant, revealing that he had seen the very latest data (on Sunday) and “I am very confident” about that date July 19. Tory backbenchers sounded mighty relieved that at last they had someone in post who was neither as preachy as Hancock, nor as trigger happy with the lockdown gun.
Javid even gave a valuable hint that he was as fed up as millions of parents with the current policy of sending whole classes of kids home after one positive test. Pointing to a more risk-based scheme of daily testing rather than isolation, it was a key clue of where he prefers to put his finger on the freedoms-restrictions weighing scales.
The new health secretary lacked the rhetorical polish of Hancock, but one got the feeling from MPs on all sides that was no bad thing. The danger, as his shadow Jonathan Ashworth pointed out, was that with cases rising to scary levels on Monday, any kind of bold confidence about the timetable for removing all restrictions could feel “hubristic”. We have been here before, of course.
Ashworth was putting down a marker that if things take a turn for the worse again, he’ll have said ‘I told you so’. As it happens it was Boris Johnson himself who sounded like ‘Captain Hindsight’ on Monday, not least when he implied that he had sacked Hancock this weekend. He read the story on Friday, Hancock was out by Saturday and that was “about the right pace, he said”.
Of course, this jars with No.10 having told us on Friday the matter was “closed” after Hancock’s initial apology. As tempting as it is to ridicule the PM’s revisionism, insiders say there was more than an element of Johnson making clear on Saturday he was leaving a pearl-handled revolver and a glass of whisky for his health secretary to pick up.
Let’s see if he’s more explicit when Keir Starmer inevitably mocks him in PMQs for his failure to act quickly and fire Hancock on Friday. Starmer has to maximise the sense of chaos and “one law for them, one for the rest of us”, even if the very next day the voters in Batley end up shrugging their shoulders and voting Tory (or Galloway).
The ministerial interchange from Hancock to Javid may once again prove the value of Johnson’s tactic of political hypnosis: look into my eyes, not around my eyes, this is a brand new government, with brand new ministers. Having asked the voters to forget that the Tories have been in power since 2010, he may now ask them to forget Hancock was running health since 2019.
And once lockdown is lifted (alongside a decent England Euros run?), there could well be a bounceback boom that will help sustain that Tory polling lead. The downside is that Javid is himself a re-tread. With the rare distinction of having been a cabinet minister under Cameron, May and Johnson, he could act as a reminder to the public that the same old faces have been in power for quite a long time now.
The scandals may change (Windrush, Snog-gate), but the personnel don’t really change in the Tory game of musical chairs, Labour may well argue. Javid himself may also suffer from being seen as a jack of all trades, but a master of none (critics ask whether he actually left a mark in any of his previous five cabinet posts). The slow-burn scandal over cronyism and transparency may yet cause some damage.
Still, there was a ruthlessness about the Tory party on Monday which many Labour MPs may envy. When Jeremy Hunt said of Hancock “the country is in his debt”, there was a deafening silence on the Conservative benches. Few Tory MPs were active allies of the former health secretary, and their loyalty seemed to be to the office, not the man.
As Keir Starmer starts to reset his own leadership this summer (read my in-depth piece on the party’s mood ahead of Batley), the lessons may not be lost on him. If he can ram home the idea that this is a tired government, he may inject some energy into his party’s morale. So far, the voters show no signs of wanting to sack the Tories any quicker than Johnson sacks his ministers.
The new health secretary, Sajid Javid, has confirmed that the final Covid restrictions will not be lifted until July 19.
Javid revealed the government’s decision not to plump for an earlier easing of restrictions on July 5 in his first Commons statement since replacing his disgraced predecessor Matt Hancock in the job.
As the UK recorded 22,868 cases on Monday, the highest daily rise since January 30, Javid pointed out that hospitalisations had doubled since the start of May.
He said the government wanted the time to build up extra protection against the more transmissible Delta variant by ensuring two-thirds of England’s adults have received two doses of the jab before lifting restrictions.
“I spent my first day as health secretary, yesterday, looking at the data and testing it to the limit,” Javid told the Commons.
“Whilst we decided not to bring forward step four, we see no reason to go beyond July 19.
“Because in truth, no date we choose comes with zero risk for Covid.
“We know we cannot simply eliminate it, we have to learn to live with it.
“We also know that people and businesses need certainty so we want every step to be irreversible.
“And make no mistake, the restrictions on our freedoms, they must come to an end.
“We owe it to the British people, who have sacrificed so much, to restore their freedoms as quickly as we possibly can and not to wait a moment longer than we need to.”
He added: “For me, July 19 is not only the end of the line, but the start of an exciting new journey for our country.”
Earlier, Javid said there would be “no going back” to Covid rules once England’s lockdown is lifted.
Boris Johnson meanwhile said England was “set fair” for the final easing of restrictions on July 19, four weeks after the initially scheduled date of June 21 for step four of the prime minister’s road map out of lockdown.
It came as shadow health secretary Jon Ashworth said junior health ministers Lord Bethell should follow Hancock through the exit door amid reports that they both used private email accounts for government business.
“Can he tell us whether he maintains confidence in that minister and isn’t it time that that particular health minister was relieved of their ministerial responsibilities as well?”
Javid replied: “I’ve got such a fantastic ministerial team.
“Every single one of them, it’s not even a question of confidence, it’s a group of ministers that are incredibly talented, that have delivered in both this House and the Lords.”
Warning! This article contains Line Of Duty spoilers of the highest order.
Line Of Duty star Daniel Mays has shared his “sneaking suspicion” that all might not be what it seems with Marcus Thurwell’s storyline.
Fans of the hit BBC cop drama will remember the character – portrayed by James Nesbitt – was killed off in the penultimate episode of the most recent series, despite viewers having ever only seen him in photographs on the show.
Thurwell was found dead as Spanish police carried out a raid on his home in the hunt for the so-called “fourth man”, who was later revealed to be DSU Ian Buckells.
However, many speculated at the time that Thurwell might actually be dead, despite a line of dialogue during a scene at AC-12 confirming his fate in the finale.
BBC
Daniel, who played series three antagonist Sergeant Danny Waldron, admitted he is one of those who believes the theory.
During an appearance on This Morning on Monday, Daniel told hosts Holly Willoughby and Phillip Schofield: “I don’t think James Nesbitt is dead, I don’t know this, but I have a sneaking suspicion he might be the main man.”
Holly agreed: “It makes sense, otherwise you’re like, what was that scene when he was dead on the bed?”
Daniel said: “We didn’t get a close up did we of his bush.”
“And why waste him? What was the point?” Phillip said.
BBC
Daniel said, however, that he wouldn’t be surprised if writer and creator Jed Mercurio was trying to trick fans, given Daniel’s own character met a grisly end very early on into series three.
He said: “James Nesbitt is a phenomenal talent but maybe it’s just Jed Mercurio dangling the carrot, who knows. I wouldn’t put it past him. He killed me off didn’t he, he could do anything.”
S Meddle/ITV/Shutterstock
While “H”, aka “the fourth man”, was revealed in the final episode of series six, many fans are convinced there’s more to the storyline – including Adrian Dunbar, who plays Superintendent Ted Hastings.
A number of questions still remain about Chief Constable Philip Osborne, who previously worked on a team with Thurwell.
Jed Mercurio previously revealed there’s potential to explore Osborne and possible links to organised crime should Line Of Duty return for a seventh series.
BBC
Speaking to Den Of Geek, he said: ”[Osborne]’s someone who retains high office who is an outright liar and has been involved in corruption in the past in terms of the Karim Ali case and the Lawrence Christopher case.
“Clearly there would be potential there if we wanted to explore it, but it’s too early to say whether we ever would.”
Actor Owen Teale, who plays Osborne, also issued a plea to Jed to write more episodes so he can “sort out” his character.
The entire Line Of Duty boxset is available to stream on BBC iPlayer. This Morning airs weekdays at 10am on ITV.
