I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
People can disagree about how serious the current situation is, and argue about the validity of their models if we don't take additional action. But why does that automatically mean EVERYTHING needs to shut down (other than schools etc). Pubs, restaurants i get. There's always been a debate about that. But there are vast other areas of the economy, the so-called "non essential shops/businesses" that are being ordered to shut down. Are these really major contributors to the spread of the disease? How much do the contribute to the spread of the disease? Where are the models stating "the effect of shutting down pubs is X, restaurants Y, etc etc".
Because every bit of the economy that you shut down will be paid back negatively down the road. But is a garden centre or DIY store where everyone is wearing masks a danger? Is a hairdressers really a super spreader? A clothes shop? etc etc.
The scientists have just basically said, "better err on the side of caution, shut everything". But do we need to shut everything? Which not shut the risky things but leave the others open.
The virus is much worse in some parts of the country than others. Just because it is rising everywhere does that mean everything has to shut down?
And fundamentally - have the different options been modelled, and where are the graphs projecting forward and giving genuine options to ministers.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
Prime ministers might be skint.
Ex Prime minsters never are.
Not much after dinner speaking at moment, though.
What on earth would you pay Boris to talk about - how not to....
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
People can disagree about how serious the current situation is, and argue about the validity of their models if we don't take additional action. But why does that automatically mean EVERYTHING needs to shut down (other than schools etc). Pubs, restaurants i get. There's always been a debate about that. But there are vast other areas of the economy, the so-called "non essential shops/businesses" that are being ordered to shut down. Are these really major contributors to the spread of the disease? How much do the contribute to the spread of the disease? Where are the models stating "the effect of shutting down pubs is X, restaurants Y, etc etc".
Because every bit of the economy that you shut down will be paid back negatively down the road. But is a garden centre or DIY store where everyone is wearing masks a danger? Is a hairdressers really a super spreader? A clothes shop? etc etc.
The scientists have just basically said, "better err on the side of caution, shut everything". But do we need to shut everything? Which not shut the risky things but leave the others open.
The virus is much worse in some parts of the country than others. Just because it is rising everywhere does that mean everything has to shut down?
And fundamentally - have the different options been modelled, and where are the graphs projecting forward and giving genuine options to ministers.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
Related to this of course is this conflation of the "Tier system" and the "local approach". Currently large parts of the country are in Tier 1. A substantial part is in Tier 2. A smaller bit is in Tier 3.
Johnson has just declared that this is insufficient to control the spread so everyone now has to enter the new "Tier 4". Eh? How do we know that everyone being in Tier 3 wouldn't be sufficient? There's evidence it's having some effect in the worst affected areas. So wouldn't it be effective in Tier 1 areas? Hell, Tier 2 seems to be having some positive effect in various areas.
Businesses in currently low (but growing) Tier 1 areas can reasonably argue that it is a bit much that a week ago it wasn't considered necessary to subject them to more than the lightest restrictions, and yet practically overnight, on the basis of almost no new data (nothing in the graphs wasn't available two weeks ago) they suddenly need Tier 4 or their hospitals are going to be overwhelmed? What was the basis for them being in Tier 1 in the first place if that is the case???
Of course none of the journalists were able to ask anything as remotely reasonable as that question.
The infuriating thing about both this response and the March response was just how bloody similar it is.
Despite plenty of warning the government decided to do nothing substantial and try and pretend things were okay.
The "rush for normality" in Summer will be a key thing to focus on for the Truth and Reconciliation commission.
I'm going to be very, very interested to see how Sturgeon plays this now. She clearly wanted another lockdown but without the financial support of the UK government it wasn't viable.
I wonder if they would extended the furlough program to Scotland if she asked to be included in the four-week lockdown? I suppose the difficult bit would be winding it down on the other side.
everything he talked about is already in place in majority of Scotland and they have already refused to give Scotland extended furlough, amazing once it is England that money is no object.
The Scottish government has a budget and is entitled to spend it as it sees fit.
The U.K. government has a great ability to borrow which is what it is doing now to fund its spending choices
The U.K., however, has no obligation to fund additional spending decisions by the Scottish government
Barnett consequentials, remember. Which is actually in part what the problem is about.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
Prime ministers might be skint.
Ex Prime minsters never are.
How Morning Cloud was financed, is not the least interesting question about 20th century political history.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
People can disagree about how serious the current situation is, and argue about the validity of their models if we don't take additional action. But why does that automatically mean EVERYTHING needs to shut down (other than schools etc). Pubs, restaurants i get. There's always been a debate about that. But there are vast other areas of the economy, the so-called "non essential shops/businesses" that are being ordered to shut down. Are these really major contributors to the spread of the disease? How much do the contribute to the spread of the disease? Where are the models stating "the effect of shutting down pubs is X, restaurants Y, etc etc".
Because every bit of the economy that you shut down will be paid back negatively down the road. But is a garden centre or DIY store where everyone is wearing masks a danger? Is a hairdressers really a super spreader? A clothes shop? etc etc.
The scientists have just basically said, "better err on the side of caution, shut everything". But do we need to shut everything? Which not shut the risky things but leave the others open.
The virus is much worse in some parts of the country than others. Just because it is rising everywhere does that mean everything has to shut down?
And fundamentally - have the different options been modelled, and where are the graphs projecting forward and giving genuine options to ministers.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
Someone should ask them at one of these press conferences - how often have you offered ministers a range of options quantifying the likely health impacts of each (against which ministers could consider in relation to the impact on economy, mental health, other health outcomes etc etc). Or have you always recommended full economic shut-down (excepting schools of course!)
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
Prime ministers might be skint.
Ex Prime minsters never are.
How Morning Cloud was financed, is not the least interesting question about 20th century political history.
Insider dealing, wasn’t it?
I think so, when they was sort of legal. But if offshore racing cost then what it costs now, the stake money must have been eye watering.
It appears to have escaped some people's notice that since that projection was made, parts of the country have entered Tier 2 and Tier 3, thereby reducing R.
I suppose in a month people will be complaining that we don't have 1000 deaths each day and saying that the models presented today were shite.
Countries that have succeeded in containing this virus tend to have two things in common: (1) they've closed or very tightly controlled their borders, and (2) they have aggressively suppressed the virus as soon as it's flared up, which has given space for track & trace to work. This is enforced with utter ruthlessness without any scruples whatsoever about liberal individualism.
The trouble with the UK is that to some extent we have economic issues with the former and political issues with the latter.
The worst bit of Johnson's press conference was when he started going on about the Tier system that had been implemented as an alternative to the circuit breaker and how they hoped it would work and he thanked local leaders and people for the huge sacrifices they had made, but ultimately it is now clear that although it has helped a bit it is clearly not enough.
A reminder that the Tier system has been in place for a couple of weeks. Most tier 3 areas have been under Tier 3 restrictions for... a week. He made it sound like it had been months...
It wasn't exactly Churchill.
"This isn't the end. Perhaps not even the beginning of the end. Nor even the end of the beginning. But it is perhaps the beginning of the beginning"
While Betfair's Next President market is at last starting to move firmly in Biden's favour, there has been very little change over the last three weeks in the Biden vs Trump Electoral College Votes spread-betting market market, where Sporting's current mid spread is 310 ECVs for Biden and 228 for Trump, still somewhat below the latest forecasts from the likes of 538.com, The Economist and others. Clearly the consensus view of those playing this market is that there is little chance of Texas turning blue and the same might even apply as regards Florida.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
People can disagree about how serious the current situation is, and argue about the validity of their models if we don't take additional action. But why does that automatically mean EVERYTHING needs to shut down (other than schools etc). Pubs, restaurants i get. There's always been a debate about that. But there are vast other areas of the economy, the so-called "non essential shops/businesses" that are being ordered to shut down. Are these really major contributors to the spread of the disease? How much do the contribute to the spread of the disease? Where are the models stating "the effect of shutting down pubs is X, restaurants Y, etc etc".
Because every bit of the economy that you shut down will be paid back negatively down the road. But is a garden centre or DIY store where everyone is wearing masks a danger? Is a hairdressers really a super spreader? A clothes shop? etc etc.
The scientists have just basically said, "better err on the side of caution, shut everything". But do we need to shut everything? Which not shut the risky things but leave the others open.
The virus is much worse in some parts of the country than others. Just because it is rising everywhere does that mean everything has to shut down?
And fundamentally - have the different options been modelled, and where are the graphs projecting forward and giving genuine options to ministers.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
Someone should ask them at one of these press conferences - how often have you offered ministers a range of options quantifying the likely health impacts of each (against which ministers could consider in relation to the impact on economy, mental health, other health outcomes etc etc). Or have you always recommended full economic shut-down (excepting schools of course!)
It is a very good question -- but, is it really the job of the Government Chief Scientist or Chief Medical Officer to do this?
As their names suggest, they give advice on science & medicine. They are not economists, after all. They don't have any expertise to make any economic assessments.
It is really the job of the PM, his advisors and his Cabinet, to be weighing all the evidence and answering this question.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that an 82 year old enjoys another year of life. That's an argument for philosophers, but really, it's a decision that politicians have to take. A horrible decision, but ultimately, power is about choosing between unpleasant courses of action.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
Prime ministers might be skint.
Ex Prime minsters never are.
Not much after dinner speaking at moment, though.
You'd be surprised, we paid a former senior politician decent whack to give us a Zoom chat, replete with Q&A.
FFS Eagles!! You could get me for a much better rate and I can guarantee you that I would be very well worth listening to, insightful, witty, funny and certainly value for money. Plus the stories I could tell.......
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
People can disagree about how serious the current situation is, and argue about the validity of their models if we don't take additional action. But why does that automatically mean EVERYTHING needs to shut down (other than schools etc). Pubs, restaurants i get. There's always been a debate about that. But there are vast other areas of the economy, the so-called "non essential shops/businesses" that are being ordered to shut down. Are these really major contributors to the spread of the disease? How much do the contribute to the spread of the disease? Where are the models stating "the effect of shutting down pubs is X, restaurants Y, etc etc".
Because every bit of the economy that you shut down will be paid back negatively down the road. But is a garden centre or DIY store where everyone is wearing masks a danger? Is a hairdressers really a super spreader? A clothes shop? etc etc.
The scientists have just basically said, "better err on the side of caution, shut everything". But do we need to shut everything? Which not shut the risky things but leave the others open.
The virus is much worse in some parts of the country than others. Just because it is rising everywhere does that mean everything has to shut down?
And fundamentally - have the different options been modelled, and where are the graphs projecting forward and giving genuine options to ministers.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
Someone should ask them at one of these press conferences - how often have you offered ministers a range of options quantifying the likely health impacts of each (against which ministers could consider in relation to the impact on economy, mental health, other health outcomes etc etc). Or have you always recommended full economic shut-down (excepting schools of course!)
It is a very good question -- but, is it really the job of the Government Chief Scientist or Chief Medical Officer to do this?
As their names suggest, they give advice on science & medicine. They are not economists, after all. They don't have any expertise to make any economic assessments.
It is really the job of the PM, his advisors and his Cabinet, to be weighing all the evidence and answering this question.
Boris is a follower, not a leader. Like a herd animal he's been most influenced by what other European leaders have done and fear of standing out.
It appears to have escaped some people's notice that since that projection was made, parts of the country have entered Tier 2 and Tier 3, thereby reducing R.
I suppose in a month people will be complaining that we don't have 1000 deaths each day and saying that the models presented today were shite.
The counter point is that the new lockdown is being introduced in part because we are now apparently exceeding SAGE's "reasonable worst case scenarios". If we are currently exceeding "reasonable worst case scenarios", then what on earth was the purpose of the graph? Presumably it wasn't to illustrate things that would never ever happen...?
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that an 82 year old enjoys another year of life. That's an argument for philosophers, but really, it's a decision that politicians have to take. A horrible decision, but ultimately, power is about choosing between unpleasant courses of action.
I slightly disagree with that actually. NICE do explicit determination of cost–benefit boundaries, and assess costs per quality-adjusted life year for NHS treatments. I think it'd be a small step from that to including some economists in SAGE who could provide the data you describe and the options with pros and cons.
But, it would be up to politicians to make the decisions as you say.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
People can disagree about how serious the current situation is, and argue about the validity of their models if we don't take additional action. But why does that automatically mean EVERYTHING needs to shut down (other than schools etc). Pubs, restaurants i get. There's always been a debate about that. But there are vast other areas of the economy, the so-called "non essential shops/businesses" that are being ordered to shut down. Are these really major contributors to the spread of the disease? How much do the contribute to the spread of the disease? Where are the models stating "the effect of shutting down pubs is X, restaurants Y, etc etc".
Because every bit of the economy that you shut down will be paid back negatively down the road. But is a garden centre or DIY store where everyone is wearing masks a danger? Is a hairdressers really a super spreader? A clothes shop? etc etc.
The scientists have just basically said, "better err on the side of caution, shut everything". But do we need to shut everything? Which not shut the risky things but leave the others open.
The virus is much worse in some parts of the country than others. Just because it is rising everywhere does that mean everything has to shut down?
And fundamentally - have the different options been modelled, and where are the graphs projecting forward and giving genuine options to ministers.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
Someone should ask them at one of these press conferences - how often have you offered ministers a range of options quantifying the likely health impacts of each (against which ministers could consider in relation to the impact on economy, mental health, other health outcomes etc etc). Or have you always recommended full economic shut-down (excepting schools of course!)
It is a very good question -- but, is it really the job of the Government Chief Scientist or Chief Medical Officer to do this?
As their names suggest, they give advice on science & medicine. They are not economists, after all. They don't have any expertise to make any economic assessments.
It is really the job of the PM, his advisors and his Cabinet, to be weighing all the evidence and answering this question.
I think you've missed the point. I'm saying they should quantify the health impact of a range of modelled options. It is then the Government's job to bring in other economic expertise etc, to consider which options should be pursued, and whether the lowest risk health option should trump all, or whether there should be a more balanced approach.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that an 82 year old enjoys another year of life. That's an argument for philosophers, but really, it's a decision that politicians have to take. A horrible decision, but ultimately, power is about choosing between unpleasant courses of action.
I slightly disagree with that actually. NICE do explicit determination of cost–benefit boundaries, and assess costs per quality-adjusted life year for NHS treatments. I think it'd be a small step from that to including some economists in SAGE who could provide the data you describe and the options with pros and cons.
But, it would be up to politicians to make the decisions as you say.
The answer then is to include economists, and philosophers, as part of SAGE.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
People can disagree about how serious the current situation is, and argue about the validity of their models if we don't take additional action. But why does that automatically mean EVERYTHING needs to shut down (other than schools etc). Pubs, restaurants i get. There's always been a debate about that. But there are vast other areas of the economy, the so-called "non essential shops/businesses" that are being ordered to shut down. Are these really major contributors to the spread of the disease? How much do the contribute to the spread of the disease? Where are the models stating "the effect of shutting down pubs is X, restaurants Y, etc etc".
Because every bit of the economy that you shut down will be paid back negatively down the road. But is a garden centre or DIY store where everyone is wearing masks a danger? Is a hairdressers really a super spreader? A clothes shop? etc etc.
The scientists have just basically said, "better err on the side of caution, shut everything". But do we need to shut everything? Which not shut the risky things but leave the others open.
The virus is much worse in some parts of the country than others. Just because it is rising everywhere does that mean everything has to shut down?
And fundamentally - have the different options been modelled, and where are the graphs projecting forward and giving genuine options to ministers.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
Someone should ask them at one of these press conferences - how often have you offered ministers a range of options quantifying the likely health impacts of each (against which ministers could consider in relation to the impact on economy, mental health, other health outcomes etc etc). Or have you always recommended full economic shut-down (excepting schools of course!)
It is a very good question -- but, is it really the job of the Government Chief Scientist or Chief Medical Officer to do this?
As their names suggest, they give advice on science & medicine. They are not economists, after all. They don't have any expertise to make any economic assessments.
It is really the job of the PM, his advisors and his Cabinet, to be weighing all the evidence and answering this question.
Boris is a follower, not a leader. Like a herd animal he's been most influenced by what other European leaders have done and fear of standing out.
"The backbone of a chocolate eclair, " as Teddy Rooseveldt put it.
He seems a bit of a gumby, this Chorley bloke. Why "before the week is out"? The vote is on Wednesday. It's not going to happen at all, but it's certainly not going to happen after that. What's the point?
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that an 82 year old enjoys another year of life. That's an argument for philosophers, but really, it's a decision that politicians have to take. A horrible decision, but ultimately, power is about choosing between unpleasant courses of action.
I slightly disagree with that actually. NICE do explicit determination of cost–benefit boundaries, and assess costs per quality-adjusted life year for NHS treatments. I think it'd be a small step from that to including some economists in SAGE who could provide the data you describe and the options with pros and cons.
But, it would be up to politicians to make the decisions as you say.
The answer then is to include economists, and philosophers, as part of SAGE.
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
Write to them? Are you having a laugh? You are aware that the US election is on Tuesday, aren't you? Not a month on Tuesday?
I realised that shortly after posting. I clearly meant communicate with them. Take out adverts if you need to.
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
The Texas Supreme Court ruled it was legal.
Then clearly there is nothing to worry about from the latest case.
Did they actually say that what Harris is doing is legal or did they only say that curbaude voting is legal?
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
Write to them? Are you having a laugh? You are aware that the US election is on Tuesday, aren't you? Not a month on Tuesday?
I realised that shortly after posting. I clearly meant communicate with them. Take out adverts if you need to.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that an 82 year old enjoys another year of life. That's an argument for philosophers, but really, it's a decision that politicians have to take. A horrible decision, but ultimately, power is about choosing between unpleasant courses of action.
A scientist can however advise that it's more effective to take certain measures early in order to avoid having to take more prolonged and extreme measures later, after which the virus will probably still be at a higher level than it would have been if you had taken those measures earlier. Act early and more businesses and more 82 year olds survive.
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
Write to them? Are you having a laugh? You are aware that the US election is on Tuesday, aren't you? Not a month on Tuesday?
Charles has yet to see an example of Republican sponsored voter disenfranchisement that he doesn't approve of.
I’ve told you on plenty of occasions that’s not true. But you continue to make the claim. I guess you can’t win on the arguments so you try to play the man. Whatever.
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
The Texas Supreme Court ruled it was legal.
Then clearly there is nothing to worry about from the latest case.
Did they actually say that what Harris is doing is legal or did they only say that curbaude voting is legal?
Keep up Charles. The Republican dominated State Supreme Court ruled it legal. The GOP have appealed to the Federal Courts. The judge assigned is a very well known partisan Republican. The Right wing judges on SCOTUS have recently hinted that they believe that electoral law is set by State legislatures and cannot be over-ruled by State courts, however reasonable the actions taken. This interpretation of the constitution like this may well result in these ballots being declared illegal. At a hearing on Monday. The day before the election
Furthermore these types of ballots are cast all over the state. But the GOP are only seeking their disqualification in heavily Democrat voting Harris County. In strong Republican areas... not a peep.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that an 82 year old enjoys another year of life. That's an argument for philosophers, but really, it's a decision that politicians have to take. A horrible decision, but ultimately, power is about choosing between unpleasant courses of action.
I slightly disagree with that actually. NICE do explicit determination of cost–benefit boundaries, and assess costs per quality-adjusted life year for NHS treatments. I think it'd be a small step from that to including some economists in SAGE who could provide the data you describe and the options with pros and cons.
But, it would be up to politicians to make the decisions as you say.
Yes the NHS already does that. What is the NICE rating for COVID? Even on a treatment basis it's not cheap. Where is the data, where is the evidence? The government are providing nothing but a few graphs from data models that haven't been peer reviewed and asking us to trust them. Frankly, after their abject performance for the last few months I'm not inclined to do so.
Just a reminder about how absolutely mental the betting markets could be.
On Thursday November 10th 2016 at 5:45pm UK time, two days after the election, @Pulpstar posted enquiring as to why there was any reason he was missing as to why Hilary Clinton was @1.05 for most votes..
It's slightly more nuanced than that as the author admits further down the thread. Curbside voting is allowed in TX but only if you physically can't get in the polling station (it's intended for disabled / elderly voters). What Harris County did was allow drive-through voting - where a clerk brings the poll to your car - and call it curbside voting to get round the restrictions on drive-through voting, which is not allowed. Also in TX, the state legislature makes the voting rules, not the counties.
Throwing out a hundred thousand ballots is facism. Nothing complicated about it.
It they want to void the election and call for a revote that would be one thing, to simply throw out people's votes is inexcusable.
Tell you what, we have a General Election here. We allow people to cast their votes from their cars and put into a box outside the scrutiny of polling stations, and where a clerk is holding the box in a parking lot.
You happy with that?
What's the difference between a polling station and a car park? Or a postbox for that matter.
It's how disabled people have voted in Texas for a while. So it is a perfectly well understood and secure method of voting.
MrEd is just flailing.
Echoing (wittingly or unwittingly) the Republican designed to justify limiting voting. Principles be damned.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that an 82 year old enjoys another year of life. That's an argument for philosophers, but really, it's a decision that politicians have to take. A horrible decision, but ultimately, power is about choosing between unpleasant courses of action.
A scientist can however advise that it's more effective to take certain measures early in order to avoid having to take more prolonged and extreme measures later, after which the virus will probably still be at a higher level than it would have been if you had taken those measures earlier. Act early and more businesses and more 82 year olds survive.
We'll see in ten days how effective such a strategy has been in Wales.
Hopefully the people in charge will learn from whatever the outcome is.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that an 82 year old enjoys another year of life. That's an argument for philosophers, but really, it's a decision that politicians have to take. A horrible decision, but ultimately, power is about choosing between unpleasant courses of action.
I slightly disagree with that actually. NICE do explicit determination of cost–benefit boundaries, and assess costs per quality-adjusted life year for NHS treatments. I think it'd be a small step from that to including some economists in SAGE who could provide the data you describe and the options with pros and cons.
But, it would be up to politicians to make the decisions as you say.
The answer then is to include economists, and philosophers, as part of SAGE.
Yes.
No need, I can do the philosophy for you. People just aren't utilitarians, however much you would like them to be or think they should be. Most people would not kill someone if offered the deal "either you kill x, or I will kill x and y and z" and most people also regard "save life" as an absolute moral imperative. They won't accept the trade off "let this 80 year old preventably die, because the figures show that prevents two cancer deaths and a suicide in the next year" and they won't let politicos make that trade off for them. Perhaps they ought to, but politics is the art of the possible.
These good polls keep rolling in for Biden, just 3 days before, so many pollsters would have to be so wrong and would have zero credibility if they are. 2018 would be unimportant if they get BOTH Trumps elections wrong.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that an 82 year old enjoys another year of life. That's an argument for philosophers, but really, it's a decision that politicians have to take. A horrible decision, but ultimately, power is about choosing between unpleasant courses of action.
A scientist can however advise that it's more effective to take certain measures early in order to avoid having to take more prolonged and extreme measures later, after which the virus will probably still be at a higher level than it would have been if you had taken those measures earlier. Act early and more businesses and more 82 year olds survive.
Maybe yes, maybe no. What the scientists would be advising, at the end of that earlier lockdown, is that the safest course of action would be to continue it. Because the upsides of continuing it (in terms of saving lives) are obvious, whereas the downsides (in terms of ruining livelihoods) will only become apparent over a longer timescale.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
Prime ministers might be skint.
Ex Prime minsters never are.
Not much after dinner speaking at moment, though.
You'd be surprised, we paid a former senior politician decent whack to give us a Zoom chat, replete with Q&A.
FFS Eagles!! You could get me for a much better rate and I can guarantee you that I would be very well worth listening to, insightful, witty, funny and certainly value for money. Plus the stories I could tell.......
Go on. You know you want to.
(And I have mouths to feed......)
I'll try my best, I fear a few people might pooh their pants when I introduce you as being involved in the prosecution of the UK's largest fraud trial.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that an 82 year old enjoys another year of life. That's an argument for philosophers, but really, it's a decision that politicians have to take. A horrible decision, but ultimately, power is about choosing between unpleasant courses of action.
A scientist can however advise that it's more effective to take certain measures early in order to avoid having to take more prolonged and extreme measures later, after which the virus will probably still be at a higher level than it would have been if you had taken those measures earlier. Act early and more businesses and more 82 year olds survive.
We'll see in ten days how effective such a strategy has been in Wales.
Hopefully the people in charge will learn from whatever the outcome is.
I don't think that anyone seriously doubts that lockdowns will reduce the spread of the virus. Or at least will do so more than any less restrictive options. Whether that in itself justifies them, is another matter.
"England Golf - the national governing body for the grassroots game in England - issued a statement this evening saying that it continues to press for clarity on the sport's position."
The issue is whether you are permitted to meet for recreation one person from a different household outdoors in a public place only if you are not holding your own golf club for the purpose of hitting your own ball with it.
The North is quickly running out of reasons to ever trust the Tories again, perhaps it will be another generation before the Red Wall splinters again
You couldn’t do something g different for one part of the country. It wouldn’t have been fair
So why not have all northern cities in tier 3 on 80% furlough ?
What has changed now that means that what was offered to Manchester is not the right approach for the whole country ?
The ONLY difference is London is now in severe lockdown and the government will therefore be more interested in protecting the businesses and population.
These good polls keep rolling in for Biden, just 3 days before, so many pollsters would have to be so wrong and would have zero credibility if they are. 2018 would be unimportant if they get BOTH Trumps elections wrong.
A scientist can however advise that it's more effective to take certain measures early in order to avoid having to take more prolonged and extreme measures later, after which the virus will probably still be at a higher level than it would have been if you had taken those measures earlier. Act early and more businesses and more 82 year olds survive.
As I keep on pointing out, Drakeford did act early and began his lockdowns in September.
He has the highest R rate and the highest death rate over the last 2 weeks in the UK.
Problem is, remember the huffing and puffing about shooting being allowed, all about the toff sports etc...when the media didn't report things like Airsoft and paintball were also in the same category.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the us.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that .
I slightly disagree with that actually. NICE do explicit determination of cost–benefit boundaries, and assess costs per quality-adjusted life year for NHS treatments. I think it'd be a small step from that to including some economists in SAGE who could provide the data you describe and the options with pros and cons.
But, it would be up to politicians to make the decisions as you say.
The answer then is to include economists, and philosophers, as part of SAGE.
Yes.
No need, I can do the philosophy for you. People just aren't utilitarians, however much you would like them to be or think they should be. Most people would not kill someone if offered the deal "either you kill x, or I will kill x and y and z" and most people also regard "save life" as an absolute moral imperative. They won't accept the trade off "let this 80 year old preventably die, because the figures show that prevents two cancer deaths and a suicide in the next year" and they won't let politicos make that trade off for them. Perhaps they ought to, but politics is the art of the possible.
People might not like to confront the trolley problem, but they would still make a choice if they had no option. It's what we do in war, or on lifeboats, after all.
Well it will probably be a really bad locals, but we know how much PMs can hang around if they want, and what incentive is there for Boris to go quietly? To avoid the hassle? Not credible, as he won't want or get a quiet retirement out of it I suspect.
He's skint apparently.
He must be really crap with money. Maybe it's because I'm not rich and not faced the temptation to become ourtrageously extravagant, but having earned as much as he will have from various sources how can be skint?
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that an 82 year old enjoys another year of life. That's an argument for philosophers, but really, it's a decision that politicians have to take. A horrible decision, but ultimately, power is about choosing between unpleasant courses of action.
I slightly disagree with that actually. NICE do explicit determination of cost–benefit boundaries, and assess costs per quality-adjusted life year for NHS treatments. I think it'd be a small step from that to including some economists in SAGE who could provide the data you describe and the options with pros and cons.
But, it would be up to politicians to make the decisions as you say.
The answer then is to include economists, and philosophers, as part of SAGE.
Yes.
No need, I can do the philosophy for you. People just aren't utilitarians, however much you would like them to be or think they should be. Most people would not kill someone if offered the deal "either you kill x, or I will kill x and y and z" and most people also regard "save life" as an absolute moral imperative. They won't accept the trade off "let this 80 year old preventably die, because the figures show that prevents two cancer deaths and a suicide in the next year" and they won't let politicos make that trade off for them. Perhaps they ought to, but politics is the art of the possible.
I think many people want to have their cake and eat it and aren't always aware of, or don't want to know about, the difficult trade offs that have to be made by Government.
But, that's no excuse for the Government not doing that thinking themselves and showing some leadership accordingly.
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the us.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that .
I slightly disagree with that actually. NICE do explicit determination of cost–benefit boundaries, and assess costs per quality-adjusted life year for NHS treatments. I think it'd be a small step from that to including some economists in SAGE who could provide the data you describe and the options with pros and cons.
But, it would be up to politicians to make the decisions as you say.
The answer then is to include economists, and philosophers, as part of SAGE.
Yes.
No need, I can do the philosophy for you. People just aren't utilitarians, however much you would like them to be or think they should be. Most people would not kill someone if offered the deal "either you kill x, or I will kill x and y and z" and most people also regard "save life" as an absolute moral imperative. They won't accept the trade off "let this 80 year old preventably die, because the figures show that prevents two cancer deaths and a suicide in the next year" and they won't let politicos make that trade off for them. Perhaps they ought to, but politics is the art of the possible.
People might not like to confront the trolley problem, but they would still make a choice if they had no option. It's what we do in war, or on lifeboats, after all.
In the trolley problem the outcomes are equally immediate. If it is actual death now vs hypothetical deaths later people will always give all the weight to the immediate and concrete.
I must admit, what i can't figure out is what Steve Baker saw or was told in Downing Street today to convince him on lockdowns. Surely any halfway intelligent "lockdown sceptic" wouldn't have been convinced by those graphs alone? Would they?
I think, on reflection, what makes me really angry about the Scientist's and Government approach is the complete lack of nuance, or analysis of the effect of options. They are basically giving up and saying they don't have a clue.
It's all just "things are bad, something must be done, shut everything". Damn the economy, damn businesses, who cares? No doubt the modelling isn't easy. But it needs to be done. If some things can stay open at minimal risk then they should be able to. And the scientists owe it to them to prove that the risk avoidance justifies the cost.
I think that is the core of the problem.
For the scientists, there is no absolutely no downside in being ultra-cautious. They will be judged on the number of deaths during the pandemic, which they accordingly wish to minimise at all costs.
That indeed is the problem. For the scientists, there is no downside at all to forecasting the direst outcomes and demanding the most draconian solutions. Their livelihoods are not on the line, after all. Damn everyone else.
Yes, like you indicate for two main reasons: (1) there's no reward for them in taking risks with their advice on the upside - in fact, they might carry the can for it if it doesn't work out - whereas they can always say 'told you so' if politicians do and it gets worse, and, (2) they see their jobs (as doctors are wont to do) as saving lives rather than livelihoods.
A scientist cannot advise definitively whether it's worth putting a person out of business in order to ensure that an 82 year old enjoys another year of life. That's an argument for philosophers, but really, it's a decision that politicians have to take. A horrible decision, but ultimately, power is about choosing between unpleasant courses of action.
A scientist can however advise that it's more effective to take certain measures early in order to avoid having to take more prolonged and extreme measures later, after which the virus will probably still be at a higher level than it would have been if you had taken those measures earlier. Act early and more businesses and more 82 year olds survive.
We'll see in ten days how effective such a strategy has been in Wales.
Hopefully the people in charge will learn from whatever the outcome is.
I don't think that anyone seriously doubts that lockdowns will reduce the spread of the virus. Or at least will do so more than any less restrictive options. Whether that in itself justifies them, is another matter.
There's also the issue of what is the optimum length of a lockdown.
For example would two separate fortnights be better or worse than a whole month.
The Republicans have only a 5% advantage in MT, and high turnout favours the Dems. Biden worth a nibble here at 9.2 at BFx IMO.
Perhaps more significant is Montana’s single House seat, which is looking a tad shaky. If the GOP lose it, and don’t pick up any seats elsewhere that might give them the majority of a state’s House seats that they don’t already have, then in the new House neither party will control a majority of state delegations. That means should the Electoral College tie 269-269, the new House would be deadlocked and unable to conduct a contingent election of the President. Unless somebody crosses party lines.
IF there is an EV tie, then the lame duck House - not the newly elected House - will make the decision. Provided they do it before Jan 2 when the new House is sworn in.
On the USA I think the markets can be explained by (1) once bitten twice shy (2) scope of legal and electoral shenanigans and (3) a general lack of conviction in Biden and/or belief he won't survive till final declaration and/or inauguration.
Those risks are all far lower than would justify a 1.5 price.
One might surmise that it would have been cheaper, with better outcomes, to have just spent the money on the NHS. Might have even picked up a cure for cancer with any spare cash.
One might surmise that it would have been cheaper, with better outcomes, to have just spent the money on the NHS. Might have even picked up a cure for cancer with any spare cash.
The money was spent on subsidising people's wages. I wonder what the situation would be like now had that not been done.
Is there anything this Government does that isn't corrupt?
The tales I could tell about pharma companies, research analysts, those medics who cross the line between research and investment analysis and dodgy trading ........
Must be rigorously operated though - I’m unhappy with drive through voting to be honest.
That's a completely different argument though. To attempt to invalidate after the fact is something else completely.
If the vote was cast illegally then it is right to throw it out. The county should also write to everyone who’s vote was thrown out and invite them to recast their vote
Write to them? Are you having a laugh? You are aware that the US election is on Tuesday, aren't you? Not a month on Tuesday?
I realised that shortly after posting. I clearly meant communicate with them. Take out adverts if you need to.
Come on Charles that is nonsense.
If it is illegal then the votes are invalid. No ifs or buts.
But the electoral authorities should make all the efforts possible to contact the individuals to give them the opportunity to cast their vote again
Comments
It appears to have escaped some people's notice that since that projection was made, parts of the country have entered Tier 2 and Tier 3, thereby reducing R.
I suppose in a month people will be complaining that we don't have 1000 deaths each day and saying that the models presented today were shite.
The trouble with the UK is that to some extent we have economic issues with the former and political issues with the latter.
The North is quickly running out of reasons to ever trust the Tories again, perhaps it will be another generation before the Red Wall splinters again
A reminder that the Tier system has been in place for a couple of weeks. Most tier 3 areas have been under Tier 3 restrictions for... a week. He made it sound like it had been months...
It wasn't exactly Churchill.
"This isn't the end. Perhaps not even the beginning of the end. Nor even the end of the beginning. But it is perhaps the beginning of the beginning"
Clearly the consensus view of those playing this market is that there is little chance of Texas turning blue and the same might even apply as regards Florida.
As their names suggest, they give advice on science & medicine. They are not economists, after all. They don't have any expertise to make any economic assessments.
It is really the job of the PM, his advisors and his Cabinet, to be weighing all the evidence and answering this question.
https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/1322644157937127426?s=19
Go on. You know you want to.
(And I have mouths to feed......)
Is there anything this Government does that isn't corrupt?
But, it would be up to politicians to make the decisions as you say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmPXrk00R4k
12 hrs ago it was 33,674,591
So 154k peoples votes added today
Obviously thats about the same number the Texas GOP judge might invalidate in Harris
Fascism in action
Did they actually say that what Harris is doing is legal or did they only say that curbaude voting is legal?
Furthermore these types of ballots are cast all over the state. But the GOP are only seeking their disqualification in heavily Democrat voting Harris County. In strong Republican areas... not a peep.
On Thursday November 10th 2016 at 5:45pm UK time, two days after the election, @Pulpstar posted enquiring as to why there was any reason he was missing as to why Hilary Clinton was @1.05 for most votes..
I repaired a lot of the my damage with that one.
Hopefully the people in charge will learn from whatever the outcome is.
My first response was "Fecking stupid, going to the gym". And for some reason people say I lack empathy.
There are still lots of decent people in the Conservative Party.
They didn't ask for this kind of stuff.
"England Golf - the national governing body for the grassroots game in England - issued a statement this evening saying that it continues to press for clarity on the sport's position."
https://www.bunkered.co.uk/golf-news/uncertainty-over-english-golf-courses-amid-new-lockdown-measures
The issue is whether you are permitted to meet for recreation one person from a different household outdoors in a public place only if you are not holding your own golf club for the purpose of hitting your own ball with it.
What has changed now that means that what was offered to Manchester is not the right approach for the whole country ?
The ONLY difference is London is now in severe lockdown and the government will therefore be more interested in protecting the businesses and population.
He has the highest R rate and the highest death rate over the last 2 weeks in the UK.
But, that's no excuse for the Government not doing that thinking themselves and showing some leadership accordingly.
https://twitter.com/gopchairwoman/status/1322334803199512578?s=21
For example would two separate fortnights be better or worse than a whole month.
Those risks are all far lower than would justify a 1.5 price.
Collect £200
But the electoral authorities should make all the efforts possible to contact the individuals to give them the opportunity to cast their vote again