Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
I agree that's their thinking. But if the east Asia policies work or, for that matter, an effective treatment is found within that year we will have made a terrible mistake.
No, we’ll have made the right decision on balance based on what we knew at the time.
Our policies were correct on what we knew a month ago. Are they correct based on what we know now?
But this really isn't about who was right and who was wrong. It is about taking the most effective steps now.
Great stuff. I think I might start retweeting that clipped video of Boris then because that is the underlying truth of the plan.
Doesn’t that mean exposing those most at risk to the virus? And what does that do to their chances?
The West want to smooth the growth curve. The Chinese and Koreans have shown you can virtually eliminate it overnight.
Our assumption seems to be that once the Chinese open up, it will come back again.
So we (France/Germany/UK etc) seem to be going for a manged Italy, rather than a Korea/Taiwan/Japan/China.
But there are two problems with our plan versus theirs:
(1) what happens if the Chinese and Koreans can stop the second wave?
(2) what happens if we lose control of the pandemic and we can't control the growth like we hoped?
It seems to me the biggest risk to the Chinese is that they re-import cases from overseas rather than a resurgence in Wuhan
Also what happens when the virus mutates? If it is as strong you have to do it all over again, if it is weak then you've just killed people off for nothing.
It is quite literally insane, I hope Peston is way off here, for all our sakes.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
Your so called information is a load of projection codswallop.
The UK was supposed to suffer from not being in the Eurozone. The UK was supposed to have suffered from the uncertainty of announcing a referendum to leave the EU and voting to do so. Now the UK is supposed to suffer from having left the EU.
We'll see.
In reality so far: The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the first decade of this century. The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the second decade of this century.
What odds the UK outgrows the Eurozone in the third decade of this century?
Alternatively if the UK was doing so well in the EU why risk changing it dramatically?
Because Brexit was about far more than just economics.
Of course, but Philip was making an economic case based on two bits of economic data, that would be pointing to remain not leave. I was not trying to resolve the Brexit debate with a cheap one liner.
That's only part of the story though, the economic data points to the UK (being less enmeshed within the EU) doing better than the Eurozone even before we voted to leave, but that doesn't say anything about whether we were doing well because of the EU or not. Our membership of the EU should surely be measured by our performance against comparable non-EU nations. We need a control group to compare against and they can't be EU members.
If you compare us against comparable non-EU nations, which I have long suggested as the Canada, Australia and New Zealand (developed, western, English speaking, not the USA which is exceptionally big) then we have performed worse than those. You might wish to pick other comparable nations and see how we've compared, but its hard to find an exact match of course because every nation is unique in its own ways.
So the data to me suggests essentially that the economic performance is: Non-EU > UK in EU > Eurozone
And not as many of those like Mr Meeks who've been making false predictions for decades suggest it would have been: Non-EU < UK in EU < Eurozone
That to me suggests the data points to embracing the whole world and not bothering ourselves too much with the EU. Growth is coming in the whole world and we need to embrace that independently.
PS I used to be a Remainer. It was posters like Mr Tyndall, Casino_Royale as well as politicians like Gove and Johnson and looking at the economic data like this for myself which switched me during the referendum campaign from Remain to Leave. I think I might be the only PBer who changed sides DURING the EU referendum campaign, which I said at the time.
The Australian, NZ and Canadian economies are entirely different to the UK’s. That doesn’t change just because they speak English.
As I said there are no exact comparisons. They are very comparable though, the differences are much exaggerated, I have family in Canada and used to live in Melbourne. Melbourne isn't that different to cities in the UK.
Or you could look at continents. If the EU was doing great then Europe should have outgrown other continents. It hasn't been doing so though.
Mature economies will tend to grow less slowly than developing ones. That does not make them less important or successful.
The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all mature economies. They've all grown faster than the UK and faster than the EU.
Given the USA was already integrated, if the EU's integration was working then shouldn't the EU have grown faster than the USA? Instead its gone massively backwards. Why?
Interesting though just how selective is our use of science. Science is about finding fact through the use of empirical evidence and experience.
We think we have the best knowledge base for pandemics of this nature? Do we f***
China. China. China. They know this stuff like the back of their hand. Look at how stringent they have been. Look at Hong Kong which is still scarred by the 2003 SARS outbreak. Their incredible measures have so far succeeded. Despite sharing borders with China they have kept cases to 130 total in the space of 2 months.
But Britain knows best.
Maybe so, but good luck arguing for the army on the streets shooting people, welding people into their homes, shuttering every business including shops, not caring if people die of starvation as a result, etc etc.
It was said a couple of months ago that China may be effective at containing a virus, but no democracy could come close to treating people in a way that we would find abhorrent if done to animals.
First off, animals are routinely "welded into their homes" and killed, democracy or not.
Secondly, there's a massive amount that can be done between "keep calm and wash your hands" and shooting people in the streets.
Thirdly, plenty of democracies often treat people abhorrently.
If you can get into the UK or Ireland from a Schengen country with an ID card, Trump’s travel ban is unworkable.
Probably partially workable. Won't many non-EU citizens have Schengen visa details and exit entry stamps in their passports?
But, yes, it would be difficult to stop European passport holders saying they have been in the UK for a month and getting on a plan. Unless they start asking people to prove it, which at the moment would be difficult.
Probably gonna be a mess.
Just ask to see their phone and look at location tracking. Or to prove where they have stayed outside of Schengen with hotel receipts. Dont co-operate and back on the next flight. Get caught lying and formally deported at best.
Good points. It's certainly going to reduce the numbers a lot. There might be people with holidays booked who will welcome it, as they can I suppose now get their money back.
As a (lapsed) scientist myself it’s just depressing to see so many on here willing to think they know better than the Chief Medical Officer and PHE. I really hope you are not representative of the public.
I do not think anyone can be a lapsed scientist. I think that once a science-based approach to problems has become your everyday norm, it is part of your mental DNA for life
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
I really think this argument is lost and the matter has moved on
Damage is damage. It isn’t wished away because hopeful Leavers say so. It’s going to be pointed out repeatedly to those who have chosen to maim the country’s economy because of an irrational hatred.
I’m getting nostalgic.
The damage of Brexit will be far more enduring than Covid-19 because it springs from a baleful malevolence in the hearts of the most avid Leavers that is going to continue to actuate a senselessly hostile approach to the EU for the foreseeable future.
And, as that tweet shows, the Conservatives have abandoned any pretence of fiscal prudence in order partially to mitigate the effects of their own idiotic obsession.
Brexit will be very damaging, but COVID-19 - and, more important - the reaction to it, will do much deeper, longer-lasting damage. A rational response to events at this time would be to extend the transition period. Unfortunately, though, that won’t happen.
Covid-19 will be a short severe shock. Brexit will continue to damage Britain for as long as Leavers continue to let their hatred of the EU act as their overriding decision-making consideration.
Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that. I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
As a (lapsed) scientist myself it’s just depressing to see so many on here willing to think they know better than the Chief Medical Officer and PHE. I really hope you are not representative of the public.
Nothing we say on here has any impact on anything apart from the people who read this blog.
We are discussing evidence like you might do in a pub. If you want us to just nod and agree with guidance like some unthinking droid then our host might as well close this forum down. Use your brain for god's sake man.
Predictable. Bet you also take herbal remedies. Of course you’re also missing the key contradiction that a key component of the response in the countries you are praising is, erm, that people have decided to “nod and agree with guidance like some unthinking droid”.
Yes and what I am advocating? More or less risky behaviour? Am I suggesting that you go and snog all your neighbours or am I immensely frustrated that the government is not moving faster?
If I personally followed the government's advice then I would undoubtedly raise my own risk. Do you think I should raise my own personal risk of catching coronavirus by keeping calm and carrying on? No thank you. I think I will do the most to minimise my risk which means I will read guidance and then go beyond it to protect myself.
Most people in this country are crying out to be able to do the same but they can't because they are waiting for the government to act. The government is not protecting them.
Interesting though just how selective is our use of science. Science is about finding fact through the use of empirical evidence and experience.
We think we have the best knowledge base for pandemics of this nature? Do we f***
China. China. China. They know this stuff like the back of their hand. Look at how stringent they have been. Look at Hong Kong which is still scarred by the 2003 SARS outbreak. Their incredible measures have so far succeeded. Despite sharing borders with China they have kept cases to 130 total in the space of 2 months.
But Britain knows best.
They're an authoritarian dictatorship. We're not.
SK isn't. Japan isn't. There are other less authoritarian models available.
The point about science is that it responds to the evidence. The evidence we have so far is that these east Asian models seem to work and Italy and Iran are disasters. The former may not prove to be true but scientists should be thinking about the new data available.
And what have SK and Japan done that Italy hasn't?
Italy shut down schools, it shut down businesses, it implemented social distancing. It backfired and spread the disease further and faster.
Italy did nothing until the virus was widely spread. Then they were completely ineffective in what they announced with self-certification at borders etc. It is only in the last 3 days that they have got really serious about looking to control the virus. Will it work? I really hope so, for their sake.
Interesting though just how selective is our use of science. Science is about finding fact through the use of empirical evidence and experience.
We think we have the best knowledge base for pandemics of this nature? Do we f***
China. China. China. They know this stuff like the back of their hand. Look at how stringent they have been. Look at Hong Kong which is still scarred by the 2003 SARS outbreak. Their incredible measures have so far succeeded. Despite sharing borders with China they have kept cases to 130 total in the space of 2 months.
But Britain knows best.
They're an authoritarian dictatorship. We're not.
SK isn't. Japan isn't. There are other less authoritarian models available.
The point about science is that it responds to the evidence. The evidence we have so far is that these east Asian models seem to work and Italy and Iran are disasters. The former may not prove to be true but scientists should be thinking about the new data available.
And what have SK and Japan done that Italy hasn't?
Italy shut down schools, it shut down businesses, it implemented social distancing. It backfired and spread the disease further and faster.
The things that Italy ended up doing at the barrel of a gun, Japan and SK did voluntarily and calmly *before it was too late*. The period between "you can do this calmly with limited damage" and "FUCK FUCK FUCK TOO LATE" is not very long. This is why on this particular issue I'm rantier than usual.
I should imagine that PB is playing its part in helping with social distancing. This provides a useful platform to interact with people without risking getting the virus.
Meanwhile all the miserable buggers who hate the company of fellow human beings are the ones most likely to come out of this unscaved.
A 90 y old friend has self-isolated in the middle of Powys & has 3-4 months' of tinned food for when he decides visiting the shops is too risky.
I can rather recommend Powys to Eadric. Nearer to London than Cornwall is yet full of ... green fields, hills and sheep.
Maybe the plague in 1349 selected for extreme introverts. They had a higher chance of survival.
Rural Wales is excellent for avoiding the disease.
The problem is, if you get it and need ICUs, then you are in very serious trouble.
First, you are long way from a hospital, and second, Wales is the country with the lowest number of ICUs per capita in Western Europe.
Eadric should probably move to Powys or Gwynedd, and then have a private jet at hand to move him to Addenbrookes in Cambridge as soon as he gets a touch of high fever.
But he'd be backwards and forwards in that jet every time he gets a bit sweaty.
Precisely
A friend this side of the border had a massive heart attack in 1998 and survived almost intact thanks to the air ambulance getting him almost instantly to Queen Elizabeth in B'ham. He's now 81 but is obviously on the 'at risk' list.
That's an option, if Eadric's budget extends to private helicopters ...
I agree that's their thinking. But if the east Asia policies work or, for that matter, an effective treatment is found within that year we will have made a terrible mistake.
I am absolutely sure the scientists & academics advising the Government realise this.
And are haunted by it.
They are carrying a heavy burden.
Completely agree. I don't envy them (or Boris) for one second. This is tough.
On Wednesday night the global pandemic met US nationalism. It will not take long to see which comes off best. As Donald Trump was speaking, the Dow futures market nosedived. His Europe travel ban came just a few hours after the US stock market entered bear territory — a fall of 20 per cent or more — for the first time since the global financial crisis. It also followed the World Health Organization’s declaration of a global pandemic. Mr Trump’s address was meant to calm the waters. By the time he finished they were considerably rougher. https://www.ft.com/content/0be9b456-6414-11ea-a6cd-df28cc3c6a68?fbclid=IwAR1p2JbRujezxHWphzGJZZKFOzUk9R3dDCoqk3U8ZrYPoMRCfQ8hGepfpK4
Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
Indeed. No sensible politician is going to do anything but follow the scientists. If you move away from the science and it goes wrong your career is over. If you follow the science and it goes wrong then you are covered.
I agree that's their thinking. But if the east Asia policies work or, for that matter, an effective treatment is found within that year we will have made a terrible mistake.
I am absolutely sure the scientists & academics advising the Government realise this.
And are haunted by it.
They are carrying a heavy burden.
Completely agree. I don't envy them (or Boris) for one second. This is tough.
I agree it is awful. But we must be clear why they are making the decisions that they are. We must stop hiding behind the idea that it is purely *science*.
Does our society want to try for a managed Italy or would they prefer a South Korean model for tackling this problem?
They were designed so that there were regular safe spaces at something like 500m but then someone decided it would be cheaper to put them every 1000 or 1500m (cant remember exact numbers). I guess the change will be going back to the original design.
Its Peston, so the plan is probably exactly the opposite.
In all seriousness, speculation like this is extremely dangerous. We aren't talking about wibbling about a possible U-Turn on a railway, it is something much bigger.
Great stuff. I think I might start retweeting that clipped video of Boris then because that is the underlying truth of the plan.
Doesn’t that mean exposing those most at risk to the virus? And what does that do to their chances?
It means exposing those at least risk (i.e. children) to the virus so that their acquired immunity acts as a break (as in breakwater) on the spread of the virus in the wider population. Meanwhile older and vulnerable adults should hunker down in self-isolation. People born later than 1960, which includes most of the parents of schoolchildren, are at relatively low risk of fatalities from this disease. I hope Peston's interpretation of the government 's strategy wrt "herd immunity" is correct.
Is this is advocationg that young people act as normal, but do not meet anyone over 60 because they are high risk? That is totally unworkable.
Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
The analogy with smoking is not fatuous. It illustrates the point that politicians can and frequently do carry out policies that are not focussed solely on minimising loss of life. If they did, we'd all live a cocooned existence, and few people want that.
It is perfectly possible, for example, that Boris would choose, for political reasons, a course of action that would involve a larger loss of life condensed into the next year in preference to a somewhat lower loss of life that dragged on until the next elections. Either of these options would be science led.
I can’t stop Leavers covering their eyes and blocking their ears. But the information will still be there when they stop tantrumming and face the real world.
Your so called information is a load of projection codswallop.
The UK was supposed to suffer from not being in the Eurozone. The UK was supposed to have suffered from the uncertainty of announcing a referendum to leave the EU and voting to do so. Now the UK is supposed to suffer from having left the EU.
We'll see.
In reality so far: The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the first decade of this century. The UK outgrew the Eurozone in the second decade of this century.
What odds the UK outgrows the Eurozone in the third decade of this century?
Alternatively if the UK was doing so well in the EU why risk changing it dramatically?
Because Brexit was about far more than just economics.
Of course, but Philip was making an economic case based on two bits of economic data, that would be pointing to remain not leave. I was not trying to resolve the Brexit debate with a cheap one liner.
That's only part of the story though, the economic data points to the UK (being less enmeshed within the EU) doing better than the Eurozone even before we voted to leave, but that doesn't say anything about whether we were doing well because of the EU or not. Our membership of the EU should surely be measured by our performance against comparable non-EU nations. We need a control group to compare against and they can't be EU members.
If you compare us against comparable non-EU nations, which I have long suggested as the Canada, Australia and New Zealand (developed, western, English speaking, not the USA which is exceptionally big) then we have performed worse than those. You might wish to pick other comparable nations and see how we've compared, but its hard to find an exact match of course because every nation is unique in its own ways.
So the data to me suggests essentially that the economic performance is: Non-EU > UK in EU > Eurozone
And not as many of those like Mr Meeks who've been making false predictions for decades suggest it would have been: Non-EU < UK in EU < Eurozone
That to me suggests the data points to embracing the whole world and not bothering ourselves too much with the EU. Growth is coming in the whole world and we need to embrace that independently.
PS I used to be a Remainer. It was posters like Mr Tyndall, Casino_Royale as well as politicians like Gove and Johnson and looking at the economic data like this for myself which switched me during the referendum campaign from Remain to Leave. I think I might be the only PBer who changed sides DURING the EU referendum campaign, which I said at the time.
The Australian, NZ and Canadian economies are entirely different to the UK’s. That doesn’t change just because they speak English.
As I said there are no exact comparisons. They are very comparable though, the differences are much exaggerated, I have family in Canada and used to live in Melbourne. Melbourne isn't that different to cities in the UK.
Or you could look at continents. If the EU was doing great then Europe should have outgrown other continents. It hasn't been doing so though.
Mature economies will tend to grow less slowly than developing ones. That does not make them less important or successful.
The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all mature economies. They've all grown faster than the UK and faster than the EU.
Given the USA was already integrated, if the EU's integration was working then shouldn't the EU have grown faster than the USA? Instead its gone massively backwards. Why?
The EU is nowhere near as integrated as the US. That’s because it is composed of individual, sovereign states.
The Australian, Canadian and New Zealand economies are very different to the UK’s, as is the American one.
Interesting though just how selective is our use of science. Science is about finding fact through the use of empirical evidence and experience.
We think we have the best knowledge base for pandemics of this nature? Do we f***
China. China. China. They know this stuff like the back of their hand. Look at how stringent they have been. Look at Hong Kong which is still scarred by the 2003 SARS outbreak. Their incredible measures have so far succeeded. Despite sharing borders with China they have kept cases to 130 total in the space of 2 months.
But Britain knows best.
They're an authoritarian dictatorship. We're not.
SK isn't. Japan isn't. There are other less authoritarian models available.
The point about science is that it responds to the evidence. The evidence we have so far is that these east Asian models seem to work and Italy and Iran are disasters. The former may not prove to be true but scientists should be thinking about the new data available.
And what have SK and Japan done that Italy hasn't?
Italy shut down schools, it shut down businesses, it implemented social distancing. It backfired and spread the disease further and faster.
italy took action much later. which is kind of the point...
Interesting though just how selective is our use of science. Science is about finding fact through the use of empirical evidence and experience.
We think we have the best knowledge base for pandemics of this nature? Do we f***
China. China. China. They know this stuff like the back of their hand. Look at how stringent they have been. Look at Hong Kong which is still scarred by the 2003 SARS outbreak. Their incredible measures have so far succeeded. Despite sharing borders with China they have kept cases to 130 total in the space of 2 months.
But Britain knows best.
They're an authoritarian dictatorship. We're not.
SK isn't. Japan isn't. There are other less authoritarian models available.
The point about science is that it responds to the evidence. The evidence we have so far is that these east Asian models seem to work and Italy and Iran are disasters. The former may not prove to be true but scientists should be thinking about the new data available.
And what have SK and Japan done that Italy hasn't?
Italy shut down schools, it shut down businesses, it implemented social distancing. It backfired and spread the disease further and faster.
The things that Italy ended up doing at the barrel of a gun, Japan and SK did voluntarily and calmly *before it was too late*. The period between "you can do this calmly with limited damage" and "FUCK FUCK FUCK TOO LATE" is not very long. This is why on this particular issue I'm rantier than usual.
That's not true.
Italy shut their schools etc in their affected regions on the 22nd February, at which point they had 79 recorded cases nationwide.
Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
The analogy with smoking is not fatuous. It illustrates the point that politicians can and frequently do carry out policies that are not focussed solely on minimising loss of life. If they did, we'd all live a cocooned existence, and few people want that.
It is perfectly possible that Boris would choose, for political reasons, a course of action that would involve a larger loss of life condensed into the next year in preference to a somewhat lower loss of life that dragged on until the next elections. Either of these options would be science led.
And you think its perfectly possible that Nicola Sturgeon, attending the same meetings, would go along with such a plan?
The anti-EU wing of the Conservative Party (who are now in control) mostly wanted to leave the EU because they want to remove environmental protections, remove workers' rights - "deregulation". For them there was never any point in anything but the hardest of Brexits.
About 100% wrong. It was for many about reinstating borders that allowed us to again determine who could come into this country and who could not. If you have no effective borders, you are no longer an effective nation - which was the EU's silent aim.
I doubt even 1 in 10,000 worried about "deregulation" outside the issue of borders.
OK for clarity, I am talking about Conservative MPs, not members or voters. I doubt that many of current cabinet, including Johnson, ever really gave a shit about "reinstating borders", but are determined to help rich people make a fast buck however destructively. That is literally all they believe in, they are fundamentalists.
Avoided testing people wherever possible to try and cover it all up to keep the olympics.
I've heard that said and I'm sure it isn't true (just possible that it was at the beginning, but not now), although it's certainly true that the Japanese testing effort is weak.
Interesting though just how selective is our use of science. Science is about finding fact through the use of empirical evidence and experience.
We think we have the best knowledge base for pandemics of this nature? Do we f***
China. China. China. They know this stuff like the back of their hand. Look at how stringent they have been. Look at Hong Kong which is still scarred by the 2003 SARS outbreak. Their incredible measures have so far succeeded. Despite sharing borders with China they have kept cases to 130 total in the space of 2 months.
But Britain knows best.
They're an authoritarian dictatorship. We're not.
SK isn't. Japan isn't. There are other less authoritarian models available.
The point about science is that it responds to the evidence. The evidence we have so far is that these east Asian models seem to work and Italy and Iran are disasters. The former may not prove to be true but scientists should be thinking about the new data available.
And what have SK and Japan done that Italy hasn't?
Italy shut down schools, it shut down businesses, it implemented social distancing. It backfired and spread the disease further and faster.
The things that Italy ended up doing at the barrel of a gun, Japan and SK did voluntarily and calmly *before it was too late*. The period between "you can do this calmly with limited damage" and "FUCK FUCK FUCK TOO LATE" is not very long. This is why on this particular issue I'm rantier than usual.
That's not true.
Italy shut their schools etc in their affected regions on the 22nd February, at which point they had 79 recorded cases nationwide.
And Singapore hasn't shut its schools - reckoning it would do more harm than good.
Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
Indeed. No sensible politician is going to do anything but follow the scientists. If you move away from the science and it goes wrong your career is over. If you follow the science and it goes wrong then you are covered.
Interesting though just how selective is our use of science. Science is about finding fact through the use of empirical evidence and experience.
We think we have the best knowledge base for pandemics of this nature? Do we f***
China. China. China. They know this stuff like the back of their hand. Look at how stringent they have been. Look at Hong Kong which is still scarred by the 2003 SARS outbreak. Their incredible measures have so far succeeded. Despite sharing borders with China they have kept cases to 130 total in the space of 2 months.
But Britain knows best.
They're an authoritarian dictatorship. We're not.
SK isn't. Japan isn't. There are other less authoritarian models available.
The point about science is that it responds to the evidence. The evidence we have so far is that these east Asian models seem to work and Italy and Iran are disasters. The former may not prove to be true but scientists should be thinking about the new data available.
And what have SK and Japan done that Italy hasn't?
Italy shut down schools, it shut down businesses, it implemented social distancing. It backfired and spread the disease further and faster.
The things that Italy ended up doing at the barrel of a gun, Japan and SK did voluntarily and calmly *before it was too late*. The period between "you can do this calmly with limited damage" and "FUCK FUCK FUCK TOO LATE" is not very long. This is why on this particular issue I'm rantier than usual.
That's not true.
Italy shut their schools etc in their affected regions on the 22nd February, at which point they had 79 recorded cases nationwide.
And Singapore hasn't shut its schools - reckoning it would do more harm than good.
Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
The analogy with smoking is not fatuous. It illustrates the point that politicians can and frequently do carry out policies that are not focussed solely on minimising loss of life. If they did, we'd all live a cocooned existence, and few people want that.
It is perfectly possible, for example, that Boris would choose, for political reasons, a course of action that would involve a larger loss of life condensed into the next year in preference to a somewhat lower loss of life that dragged on until the next elections. Either of these options would be science led.
That is a really shitty and scurrilous suggestion.
That would not be science led.
The scientists would go public, Sturgeon would go public, Drakeford would go public.
And finally, any suggestion of manipulating this for electoral gain would destroy Boris for ever.
Approx actual Chinese Coronavirus reported infection rates:
Whole of China: 0.005% (5 per 100000), 80k out of 1.4bn Whole of Hubei province: 0.15% (150 per 100000), 75k out of 57m (I've lost province figures, so I've approximated on a 'most' basis) Wuhan prefecture: 0.5% ish (500 per 100000), 50-60k out of 9.7m
So David L's figures were for a low level subdivision, not China sea a whole.
So, UK is Hubei sized, Wuhan is Lombardy (8k cases) or London sized.
Given the chaos in Lombardy and Wuhan to reach 0.07% and 0.5% infection rates, respectively, herd immunity, even done gradually over 6-8 months, does not look remotely pain free. Unless they have seen some research that has found masses and masses of asymptomatics.
Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
Indeed. No sensible politician is going to do anything but follow the scientists. If you move away from the science and it goes wrong your career is over. If you follow the science and it goes wrong then you are covered.
The anti-EU wing of the Conservative Party (who are now in control) mostly wanted to leave the EU because they want to remove environmental protections, remove workers' rights - "deregulation". For them there was never any point in anything but the hardest of Brexits.
About 100% wrong. It was for many about reinstating borders that allowed us to again determine who could come into this country and who could not. If you have no effective borders, you are no longer an effective nation - which was the EU's silent aim.
I doubt even 1 in 10,000 worried about "deregulation" outside the issue of borders.
OK for clarity, I am talking about Conservative MPs, not members or voters. I doubt that many of current cabinet, including Johnson, ever really gave a shit about "reinstating borders", but are determined to help rich people make a fast buck however destructively. That is literally all they believe in, they are fundamentalists.
Most of the cabinet are opportunists jumping on a bandwagon for personal power, not to make the rich richer. (That doesnt make it better but I think it is a more accurate reflection of their motives and how they ended up here).
"Overall the evidence shows that in most ways they are as safe as conventional motorways but not in every way"
Overall the evidence shows that in most ways russian roulette is as safe as conventional sports, but not in every way. (Actually, safer: the risk of limb breakage, tendon strain and joint damage is nil.) So we should take further measures to improve its safety.
Great, particularly at this juncture, to see the government has a handle on probability and risk assessment.
Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?
As a (lapsed) scientist myself it’s just depressing to see so many on here willing to think they know better than the Chief Medical Officer and PHE. I really hope you are not representative of the public.
I do not think anyone can be a lapsed scientist. I think that once a science-based approach to problems has become your everyday norm, it is part of your mental DNA for life
Not true. A surprising number of Nobel winners go on to embrace crackpot pseudo-science.
Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?
This has been asked and answered many, many, many times already.
Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?
This has been asked and answered many, many, many times already.
When ? (The current position being that "we might think about it" !)
I agree that's their thinking. But if the east Asia policies work or, for that matter, an effective treatment is found within that year we will have made a terrible mistake.
I am absolutely sure the scientists & academics advising the Government realise this.
And are haunted by it.
They are carrying a heavy burden.
Completely agree. I don't envy them (or Boris) for one second. This is tough.
I agree it is awful. But we must be clear why they are making the decisions that they are. We must stop hiding behind the idea that it is purely *science*.
Does our society want to try for a managed Italy or would they prefer a South Korean model for tackling this problem?
It’s very, very hard. I don’t blame any leader for the decisions they make if they are being guided by the science and deferring to scientific expertise. I may not agree with the UK government approach, but I can understand it and I certainly don’t question its motives. I can’t say the same for Trump.
Interesting though just how selective is our use of science. Science is about finding fact through the use of empirical evidence and experience.
We think we have the best knowledge base for pandemics of this nature? Do we f***
China. China. China. They know this stuff like the back of their hand. Look at how stringent they have been. Look at Hong Kong which is still scarred by the 2003 SARS outbreak. Their incredible measures have so far succeeded. Despite sharing borders with China they have kept cases to 130 total in the space of 2 months.
But Britain knows best.
They're an authoritarian dictatorship. We're not.
SK isn't. Japan isn't. There are other less authoritarian models available.
The point about science is that it responds to the evidence. The evidence we have so far is that these east Asian models seem to work and Italy and Iran are disasters. The former may not prove to be true but scientists should be thinking about the new data available.
And what have SK and Japan done that Italy hasn't?
Italy shut down schools, it shut down businesses, it implemented social distancing. It backfired and spread the disease further and faster.
The things that Italy ended up doing at the barrel of a gun, Japan and SK did voluntarily and calmly *before it was too late*. The period between "you can do this calmly with limited damage" and "FUCK FUCK FUCK TOO LATE" is not very long. This is why on this particular issue I'm rantier than usual.
That's not true.
Italy shut their schools etc in their affected regions on the 22nd February, at which point they had 79 recorded cases nationwide.
I believe that on the 22nd February they only closed schools in a few towns. It was also already clear that the virus had already been circulating undetected in Lombardy at least, as they could not trace the infection back to any known case nor any travel to affected areas.
"Overall the evidence shows that in most ways they are as safe as conventional motorways but not in every way"
Overall the evidence shows that in most ways russian roulette is as safe as conventional sports, but not in every way. (Actually, safer: the risk of limb breakage, tendon strain and joint damage is nil.) So we should take further measures to improve its safety.
Great, particularly at this juncture, to see the government has a handle on probability and risk assessment.
I've heard a lot about this issue over the last few months. It's a bit like seat belts. They kill people who would have survived if they weren't wearing one. But they save many more lives of people who would have died without one.
You are a lot lot safer in a refuge area of a smart motorway than the hard shoulder of a regular motorway. But you are safer on the hard shoulder of a regular motorway than if you can't make it to a refuge area of a smart motorway.
Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?
This has been asked and answered many, many, many times already.
When ? (The current position being that "we might think about it" !)
In the Press Conference on Monday either the CMO or CSO went into some detail answering this question.
In other Trumpian incoherent thinking news, it appears that citizens of San Marino and Monaco can still fly to the US whilst those of Italy and France can't.
I agree that's their thinking. But if the east Asia policies work or, for that matter, an effective treatment is found within that year we will have made a terrible mistake.
I am absolutely sure the scientists & academics advising the Government realise this.
And are haunted by it.
They are carrying a heavy burden.
Completely agree. I don't envy them (or Boris) for one second. This is tough.
I agree it is awful. But we must be clear why they are making the decisions that they are. We must stop hiding behind the idea that it is purely *science*.
Does our society want to try for a managed Italy or would they prefer a South Korean model for tackling this problem?
It’s very, very hard. I don’t blame any leader for the decisions they make if they are being guided by the science and deferring to scientific expertise. I may not agree with the UK government approach, but I can understand it and I certainly don’t question its motives. I can’t say the same for Trump.
Yes I agree with that. I just wonder whether they truly understand the trade-offs they are making. Have they forgotten their baseline assumptions? I hope not.
Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?
Because we are not trying to eliminate the virus. The govt plan is to let it spread a bit at this stage. Not a lot but a bit. Counter intuitive but has been explained many times on these threads.
Whether its right or wrong we dont know (and will never know as we wont run the parallel universes with alternative actions). The people best placed to make the call are the scientists with many inter disciplinary experts supporting them. It is a shit job for them and they do it with my support and gratitude.
The EU commission says it 'disapproves' the US decision taken unilaterally and without consultation
Surely a better response would be, "While we appreciate the somewhat belated efforts of the United States to address this crisis and their failure to control the spread of the virus within their own country putting others at risk it would be better if the international community worked together on this."
"Overall the evidence shows that in most ways they are as safe as conventional motorways but not in every way"
Overall the evidence shows that in most ways russian roulette is as safe as conventional sports, but not in every way. (Actually, safer: the risk of limb breakage, tendon strain and joint damage is nil.) So we should take further measures to improve its safety.
Great, particularly at this juncture, to see the government has a handle on probability and risk assessment.
Yup.
Overall the evidence shows that limiting exposure to Covid-19 is a good idea, but not in every way. In some ways killing off lots of old people will massively reduce the burden on care services and the NHS, freeing up funds for vanity projects like the BoZo Bridge...
As a (lapsed) scientist myself it’s just depressing to see so many on here willing to think they know better than the Chief Medical Officer and PHE. I really hope you are not representative of the public.
I do not think anyone can be a lapsed scientist. I think that once a science-based approach to problems has become your everyday norm, it is part of your mental DNA for life
Not true. A surprising number of Nobel winners go on to embrace crackpot pseudo-science.
Interesting though just how selective is our use of science. Science is about finding fact through the use of empirical evidence and experience.
We think we have the best knowledge base for pandemics of this nature? Do we f***
China. China. China. They know this stuff like the back of their hand. Look at how stringent they have been. Look at Hong Kong which is still scarred by the 2003 SARS outbreak. Their incredible measures have so far succeeded. Despite sharing borders with China they have kept cases to 130 total in the space of 2 months.
But Britain knows best.
They're an authoritarian dictatorship. We're not.
SK isn't. Japan isn't. There are other less authoritarian models available.
The point about science is that it responds to the evidence. The evidence we have so far is that these east Asian models seem to work and Italy and Iran are disasters. The former may not prove to be true but scientists should be thinking about the new data available.
And what have SK and Japan done that Italy hasn't?
Italy shut down schools, it shut down businesses, it implemented social distancing. It backfired and spread the disease further and faster.
The things that Italy ended up doing at the barrel of a gun, Japan and SK did voluntarily and calmly *before it was too late*. The period between "you can do this calmly with limited damage" and "FUCK FUCK FUCK TOO LATE" is not very long. This is why on this particular issue I'm rantier than usual.
That's not true.
Italy shut their schools etc in their affected regions on the 22nd February, at which point they had 79 recorded cases nationwide.
I believe that on the 22nd February they only closed schools in a few towns. It was also already clear that the virus had already been circulating undetected in Lombardy at least, as they could not trace the infection back to any known case nor any travel to affected areas.
In towns like Codogno, where they were closed, infections are now well under control.
Interesting though just how selective is our use of science. Science is about finding fact through the use of empirical evidence and experience.
We think we have the best knowledge base for pandemics of this nature? Do we f***
China. China. China. They know this stuff like the back of their hand. Look at how stringent they have been. Look at Hong Kong which is still scarred by the 2003 SARS outbreak. Their incredible measures have so far succeeded. Despite sharing borders with China they have kept cases to 130 total in the space of 2 months.
But Britain knows best.
They're an authoritarian dictatorship. We're not.
SK isn't. Japan isn't. There are other less authoritarian models available.
The point about science is that it responds to the evidence. The evidence we have so far is that these east Asian models seem to work and Italy and Iran are disasters. The former may not prove to be true but scientists should be thinking about the new data available.
And what have SK and Japan done that Italy hasn't?
Italy shut down schools, it shut down businesses, it implemented social distancing. It backfired and spread the disease further and faster.
The things that Italy ended up doing at the barrel of a gun, Japan and SK did voluntarily and calmly *before it was too late*. The period between "you can do this calmly with limited damage" and "FUCK FUCK FUCK TOO LATE" is not very long. This is why on this particular issue I'm rantier than usual.
That's not true.
Italy shut their schools etc in their affected regions on the 22nd February, at which point they had 79 recorded cases nationwide.
I believe that on the 22nd February they only closed schools in a few towns. It was also already clear that the virus had already been circulating undetected in Lombardy at least, as they could not trace the infection back to any known case nor any travel to affected areas.
They closed the schools and took other draconian actions in the affected areas. It didn't work.
On 22 February, the government announced a new decree imposing the quarantine of more than 50,000 people from 11 different municipalities in Northern Italy. The quarantine zones are called the Red Zones and the areas in Lombardy and Veneto outside of them are called the Yellow Zones.[133] Penalties for violations range from a €206 fine to three months of imprisonment.[134] The Italian military and law enforcement agencies were instructed to secure and implement the lockdown.[135]
Schools were closed in ten municipalities in Lombardy, one in Veneto and one in Emilia Romagna. All public events were cancelled and some commercial activities[which?] were halted or were allowed to resume only until 6 p.m.[136][137] All religious services were cancelled.[138] Regional train services to the most affected areas were suspended, with trains skipping stops at Codogno, Maleo and Casalpusterlengo stations.[139][140]
Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
The analogy with smoking is not fatuous. It illustrates the point that politicians can and frequently do carry out policies that are not focussed solely on minimising loss of life. If they did, we'd all live a cocooned existence, and few people want that.
It is perfectly possible that Boris would choose, for political reasons, a course of action that would involve a larger loss of life condensed into the next year in preference to a somewhat lower loss of life that dragged on until the next elections. Either of these options would be science led.
And you think its perfectly possible that Nicola Sturgeon, attending the same meetings, would go along with such a plan?
I'm sure that Nicola Sturgeon, like Boris Johnson, would go along with whatever she thinks will be of most political benefit to her. The point is that it is the scientists who set out the options, and the politicians who choose from the options. There is never just one option, and the options are rarely clear-cut.
From a purely economical point of view, it may, for example, be that the best option is to simply ignore the virus and accept that a number of mostly unproductive old and ill people will die. That could even save lives overall, given that the GDP of the country would be higher, and people live longer in rich countries. It would seem incredibly heartless though, and I can't imagine that any politician would pursue such a policy, even if it ultimately led to saved lives.
Please note that I am not criticising the work of the scientists in any way, nor am I claiming the Boris would ignore their conclusions. I am merely pointing out that there are indeed political choices to be made, and that disputing those political choices does not mean that one is dissing the scientists!
"Overall the evidence shows that in most ways they are as safe as conventional motorways but not in every way"
Overall the evidence shows that in most ways russian roulette is as safe as conventional sports, but not in every way. (Actually, safer: the risk of limb breakage, tendon strain and joint damage is nil.) So we should take further measures to improve its safety.
Great, particularly at this juncture, to see the government has a handle on probability and risk assessment.
I've heard a lot about this issue over the last few months. It's a bit like seat belts. They kill people who would have survived if they weren't wearing one. But they save many more lives of people who would have died without one.
You are a lot lot safer in a refuge area of a smart motorway than the hard shoulder of a regular motorway. But you are safer on the hard shoulder of a regular motorway than if you can't make it to a refuge area of a smart motorway.
Yes. The issues are around what happens when a car stops in a live lane, usually the inside one with no shoulder. The matrix signs need to be faster to react, along with recovery crews. Advice needs to be to remain in your vehicle, and there need to be more refuge areas.
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?
Because we are not trying to eliminate the virus. The govt plan is to let it spread a bit at this stage. Not a lot but a bit. Counter intuitive but has been explained many times on these threads.
Whether its right or wrong we dont know (and will never know as we wont run the parallel universes with alternative actions). The people best placed to make the call are the scientists with many inter disciplinary experts supporting them. It is a shit job for them and they do it with my support and gratitude.
Sorry but that explanation does not pass the smell test.
Firstly, it is idiotic to risk the running of the government in this way (irrespective of any arguments about the general population). It says rather that the system is very slow to react to developing information about the bug.
Secondly, if the government plan is "to let it spread a bit at this stage", don't you think they might have shared that it of information with us ?
Indeed. No sensible politician is going to do anything but follow the scientists. If you move away from the science and it goes wrong your career is over. If you follow the science and it goes wrong then you are covered.
But in this case is there such a thing as THE science that can be followed?
Perhaps there are different valid approaches, all of them informed by science, that can be taken. Which one you choose then depends on what you are prioritizing.
For example, your number one priority could be any of -
Lowest total number of deaths. Flattest peak infection numbers. Avoidance of deep recession. Protection of NHS capacity. Etc.
If it so happens that all key objectives are aligned, i.e. are not in conflict with each other, then the political decision as to what to do becomes very easy, assuming the science is undisputed. But where there are conflicts - as there surely are - it is less so.
And ditto if the science itself is so uncertain that it is not really science at all but more educated guesswork.
Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?
This has been asked and answered many, many, many times already.
Is your position the CMO always knows best, and therefore cannot have made any mistakes. Because it seems that we will be unlikely to learn from mistakes made by the UK - or indeed by other countries because their equivalent of the CMO will also by your logic always know best (or is this some weird peculiarity where foreign CMOs can make mistakes but our can't?)s
"Overall the evidence shows that in most ways they are as safe as conventional motorways but not in every way"
Overall the evidence shows that in most ways russian roulette is as safe as conventional sports, but not in every way. (Actually, safer: the risk of limb breakage, tendon strain and joint damage is nil.) So we should take further measures to improve its safety.
Great, particularly at this juncture, to see the government has a handle on probability and risk assessment.
I've heard a lot about this issue over the last few months. It's a bit like seat belts. They kill people who would have survived if they weren't wearing one. But they save many more lives of people who would have died without one.
You are a lot lot safer in a refuge area of a smart motorway than the hard shoulder of a regular motorway. But you are safer on the hard shoulder of a regular motorway than if you can't make it to a refuge area of a smart motorway.
Yes. The issues are around what happens when a car stops in a live lane, usually the inside one with no shoulder. The matrix signs need to be faster to react, along with recovery crews. Advice needs to be to remain in your vehicle, and there need to be more refuge areas.
I thought advice was [if its safe to do so] to get out of your vehicle and as far away from the road as possible?
Great stuff. I think I might start retweeting that clipped video of Boris then because that is the underlying truth of the plan.
Doesn’t that mean exposing those most at risk to the virus? And what does that do to their chances?
It means exposing those at least risk (i.e. children) to the virus so that their acquired immunity acts as a break (as in breakwater) on the spread of the virus in the wider population. Meanwhile older and vulnerable adults should hunker down in self-isolation. People born later than 1960, which includes most of the parents of schoolchildren, are at relatively low risk of fatalities from this disease. I hope Peston's interpretation of the government 's strategy wrt "herd immunity" is correct.
Is this is advocationg that young people act as normal, but do not meet anyone over 60 because they are high risk? That is totally unworkable.
No. The people at risk are those over 70 with various comorbidities. They are mainly retired and at home normally. It doesn't take much for them to self-isolate, even from their grandchildren for a while (until the herd immunity kicks in). The behaviour of young people can't be prescribed - they will do as they do.
Pretty sure this call came from the government's advisers, who have publicly defended not bringing in social distancing measures sooner or setting out more strident advice on avoiding infection. They didn't think the evidence supported it. But I suspect a fuller picture of their reasoning isn't going to emerge until all this is over. A counter-intuitive modelling result suggesting it would be ineffective or disproportionately disruptive for whatever effect it would have, perhaps? If it turns out to have come down to a judgment call from leading social psychologists and communications experts that "average British people are too stupid and emotional to handle such advice, they'll either start a mass panic or completely ignore it - best stick to telling them to wash hands and use a tissue until that message has permeated their thick skulls" then I'll feel a bit miffed (though whether at the experts or my fellow Brits I haven't decided yet!).
It's hard to say exactly what's coming from where.
Could it be coming from the Pandemic plan the government drew up in 2011?
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?
This has been asked and answered many, many, many times already.
Is your position the CMO always knows best, and therefore cannot have made any mistakes. Because it seems that we will be unlikely to learn from mistakes made by the UK - or indeed by other countries because their equivalent of the CMO will also by your logic always know best (or is this some weird peculiarity where foreign CMOs can make mistakes but our can't?)s
No my position is the CMO is an expert with all the available information, the best expertise and advice and I trust the CMO more than I trust random people on the internet. I also trust the CMO knows better than others how this disease may interact with the NHS and what controls can or can't work in this country.
There is a time and a place for putting your faith in experts. This is one of them.
4th death in Germany, first in Austria. It looks like Germany's original outbreak was just a lot younger than Italy's, as most people could clearly see.
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?
Because we are not trying to eliminate the virus. The govt plan is to let it spread a bit at this stage. Not a lot but a bit. Counter intuitive but has been explained many times on these threads.
Whether its right or wrong we dont know (and will never know as we wont run the parallel universes with alternative actions). The people best placed to make the call are the scientists with many inter disciplinary experts supporting them. It is a shit job for them and they do it with my support and gratitude.
Sorry but that explanation does not pass the smell test.
Firstly, it is idiotic to risk the running of the government in this way (irrespective of any arguments about the general population). It says rather that the system is very slow to react to developing information about the bug.
Secondly, if the government plan is "to let it spread a bit at this stage", don't you think they might have shared that it of information with us ?
What I think we need to do is measure those assumptions against the real world examples that we have. China currently has 14,800 active cases. On current trends it will eliminate the virus within the month. The infection rate in China, because of the steps they have taken, is currently 0.56% of the population. By the end of this phase it may reach 0.6%. Not 40%, not 70% but 0.6%.
You have not got the data there to calculate the 'population infection rate', as some large majority (80%? 99%? 99.9%?) of cases ('mild') are not known to the authorities, and we do not know what that number is.
So this is the "detected infection" rate.
We will only have a better idea of the 'population infection rate' from serological studies done after the fact.
For all we know it could already be 10% or 30% or 70% in that area.
Now if that is materially wrong elimination might not work because there is an undetected pool in the community from which it will spread again. So we will see. But the WHO work in China found no evidence to support this "hidden" infection. I agree that the evidence is incomplete at this stage but what if China or more credibly SK are saying, that's it. There are no more cases?
Those in the West seem to be pining for this iceberg theory. Those who have the most data on it, don't believe in the iceberg. Again it seems to be another baseline assumption that is held in the West that is just wrong.
Its like Game Theory though, we have to operate based upon how we know others will operate.
Even when this was in China and being dealt with by welding buildings shut everyone here knew the west wouldn't - and couldn't - act that way.
Now yes the UK is an island. We could go hardcore - shut the borders, ban trade from Europe and from the USA and from the rest of the world. Shut ourselves off from the entire world. But for how long?
This is in the wild in America and Europe, they're not going to do that. They're not capable of shutting themselves down, they're not capable of being China, they're not capable of eliminating this. So what do we do?
If this is in the wild for years do we hide from the entire world, shut down all borders etc for years?
We can't just shut down the borders for weeks because we know in 2 weeks time this will still existing in China and France and Spain and Germany etc. Are we as a nation going to self-isolate from them for months? Years?
Given we cannot feed ourselves it is impossible to close the borders. Remember Tory policy is to do away with farmers.
It does look like the government is sticking to the script outlined here
The strategy is about managing an epidemic in business as usual rather than an "all it takes" attack.
It doesn't take into account lessons from the SARS epidemic. Strictly neither SARS nor COVID-19 is influenza of course. Nevertheless Asian countries that were hit by SARS have adapted their strategies to a more preventative approach.
The point, I think, is that there are two schools thought on how to tackle COVID-19. They are both scientifically based, so we need to be lead by the science.
My concerns about the UK's approach relate to Italy, in particular:
Is the current Italian situation envisaged in the UK's strategy?
If not, what is the UK doing differently from Italy, and in an effective way, to prevent us becoming a second Italy?
I garbled this. I meant to say, there are two schools of thought about how best to manage the epidemic: manage it within business as usual or all-it-takes prevention. They are both science-based approaches so you can't just say, let's go with the science. You need to understand what each strategy is trying to achieve and make a decision based on what you think is more important. However, the all-it-takes prevention approach is informed by recent SARS epidemics.
Indeed. It's remarkable how otherwise intelligent folk seem unable to grasp this point.
Both those approaches can and will have been simulated with powerful computers.
What is the figure of merit? If it is to reduce deaths in the next 3 weeks, then probably you should shut down absolutely everything now.
However, the figure of merit should be to reduce the total number of deaths over the full course of the epidemic, say a year.
Once you have decided the figure of merit, there is a well-defined answer.
From what has been said, it is clear that the Government are taking a longer-term rather than a shorter-term view. A marathon, not a sprint.
That sounds very naive to me. The figure of merit for a democratically elected government is its popularity come the next election, and popularity isn't based solely on lives saved. Things like individual freedom are also important to many people (see USA). The whole point is that the basis for the figure of merit depends on your political inclination.
FFS, the Government is taking the advice of independent scientific advisors.
They are not Tories, they are probably not even very interested in politics -- and if they are, they are probably mildly left of centre.
They are decent, independent, highly experienced scientists, working for the good of the country, not the Government. They don't have to do this, and they are probably sweating blood to get this right.
And the Government will be taking their advice, because it is too dangerous not to. The scientific advisors would not be sitting quietly by, if their advice was being ignored.
The figure of merit will have no politics in it. It will be about saving most lives.
But, it is probably not about saving most lives in the next 3 weeks.
You're just not getting it, are you? Where in my argument have I given any indication that the scientists are political? Once again, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly: it is the job of the experts is to lay out the options to the best of their ability. It is the job of the politicians to choose from those options. There is no obligation on the politicians to choose whatever option ultimately leads to the least loss of life. If that were true in general, things like smoking would have been banned ages ago.
The analogy with smoking is fatuous.
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
Or you might ask them why the eff weren't we advising people with mild RTI symptoms like Nadine to self isolate ?
Because we are not trying to eliminate the virus. The govt plan is to let it spread a bit at this stage. Not a lot but a bit. Counter intuitive but has been explained many times on these threads.
Whether its right or wrong we dont know (and will never know as we wont run the parallel universes with alternative actions). The people best placed to make the call are the scientists with many inter disciplinary experts supporting them. It is a shit job for them and they do it with my support and gratitude.
Sorry but that explanation does not pass the smell test.
Firstly, it is idiotic to risk the running of the government in this way (irrespective of any arguments about the general population). It says rather that the system is very slow to react to developing information about the bug.
Secondly, if the government plan is "to let it spread a bit at this stage", don't you think they might have shared that it of information with us ?
"Overall the evidence shows that in most ways they are as safe as conventional motorways but not in every way"
Overall the evidence shows that in most ways russian roulette is as safe as conventional sports, but not in every way. (Actually, safer: the risk of limb breakage, tendon strain and joint damage is nil.) So we should take further measures to improve its safety.
Great, particularly at this juncture, to see the government has a handle on probability and risk assessment.
I've heard a lot about this issue over the last few months. It's a bit like seat belts. They kill people who would have survived if they weren't wearing one. But they save many more lives of people who would have died without one.
You are a lot lot safer in a refuge area of a smart motorway than the hard shoulder of a regular motorway. But you are safer on the hard shoulder of a regular motorway than if you can't make it to a refuge area of a smart motorway.
Yes. The issues are around what happens when a car stops in a live lane, usually the inside one with no shoulder. The matrix signs need to be faster to react, along with recovery crews. Advice needs to be to remain in your vehicle, and there need to be more refuge areas.
I thought advice was [if its safe to do so] to get out of your vehicle and as far away from the road as possible?
On a normal motorway yes, you should get out and off the road behind your vehicle.
AIUI a high proportion of the fatalities on the smart motorways have been people trying to evacuate their vehicles struck directly by other vehicles, rather than as a result of two vehicles colliding.
You’re safest of all well away from the road, then in your car, then as a pedestrian on the carriageway.
What I think we need to do is measure those assumptions against the real world examples that we have. China currently has 14,800 active cases. On current trends it will eliminate the virus within the month. The infection rate in China, because of the steps they have taken, is currently 0.56% of the population. By the end of this phase it may reach 0.6%. Not 40%, not 70% but 0.6%.
You have not got the data there to calculate the 'population infection rate', as some large majority (80%? 99%? 99.9%?) of cases ('mild') are not known to the authorities, and we do not know what that number is.
So this is the "detected infection" rate.
We will only have a better idea of the 'population infection rate' from serological studies done after the fact.
For all we know it could already be 10% or 30% or 70% in that area.
Now if that is materially wrong elimination might not work because there is an undetected pool in the community from which it will spread again. So we will see. But the WHO work in China found no evidence to support this "hidden" infection. I agree that the evidence is incomplete at this stage but what if China or more credibly SK are saying, that's it. There are no more cases?
Those in the West seem to be pining for this iceberg theory. Those who have the most data on it, don't believe in the iceberg. Again it seems to be another baseline assumption that is held in the West that is just wrong.
Its like Game Theory though, we have to operate based upon how we know others will operate.
Even when this was in China and being dealt with by welding buildings shut everyone here knew the west wouldn't - and couldn't - act that way.
Now yes the UK is an island. We could go hardcore - shut the borders, ban trade from Europe and from the USA and from the rest of the world. Shut ourselves off from the entire world. But for how long?
This is in the wild in America and Europe, they're not going to do that. They're not capable of shutting themselves down, they're not capable of being China, they're not capable of eliminating this. So what do we do?
If this is in the wild for years do we hide from the entire world, shut down all borders etc for years?
We can't just shut down the borders for weeks because we know in 2 weeks time this will still existing in China and France and Spain and Germany etc. Are we as a nation going to self-isolate from them for months? Years?
Given we cannot feed ourselves it is impossible to close the borders. Remember Tory policy is to do away with farmers.
Its not Tory policy but I wish it was. Though not do away with farmers, do what New Zealand did to its farmers - tell them to compete on a global market without subsidies or tariffs. Sink or swim.
Comments
But this really isn't about who was right and who was wrong. It is about taking the most effective steps now.
It is quite literally insane, I hope Peston is way off here, for all our sakes.
Given the USA was already integrated, if the EU's integration was working then shouldn't the EU have grown faster than the USA? Instead its gone massively backwards. Why?
Secondly, there's a massive amount that can be done between "keep calm and wash your hands" and shooting people in the streets.
Thirdly, plenty of democracies often treat people abhorrently.
Brexiteers still blaming people who advocated Remain for their vote...
The scientists know that their reputation is at stake. How do you think Chris Whitty feels with this huge burden to bear? This epidemic will be modelled and remodelled in future, and Whitty knows he must get the response right. Otherwise his name is shit.
If Whitty says this must be done to save the most lives, then Boris will do it. As has been stated by Philip Thomson, the heads of the devolved administrations attend these meetings.
So, you are saying it goes.
Chris Whitty & the Scientists: "This is what you need to do to minimise loss of life, we've done the modelling. "
Boris: "I am ignoring that. I have got my Whiff-whaff meter and it tells me that it is best to maximise the GDP. It's really political. I'm the PM & I choose"
Nicola Sturgeon & Mark Drakeford: "Yeah, we go with Boris, and not the Scientists. He's the PM."
If I personally followed the government's advice then I would undoubtedly raise my own risk. Do you think I should raise my own personal risk of catching coronavirus by keeping calm and carrying on? No thank you. I think I will do the most to minimise my risk which means I will read guidance and then go beyond it to protect myself.
Most people in this country are crying out to be able to do the same but they can't because they are waiting for the government to act. The government is not protecting them.
What is the herbal remedy reference about btw?
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1238047746105520128
That's an option, if Eadric's budget extends to private helicopters ...
https://twitter.com/thesportsman/status/1238040334354931712?s=21
https://www.ft.com/content/0be9b456-6414-11ea-a6cd-df28cc3c6a68?fbclid=IwAR1p2JbRujezxHWphzGJZZKFOzUk9R3dDCoqk3U8ZrYPoMRCfQ8hGepfpK4
Does our society want to try for a managed Italy or would they prefer a South Korean model for tackling this problem?
In all seriousness, speculation like this is extremely dangerous. We aren't talking about wibbling about a possible U-Turn on a railway, it is something much bigger.
But not the Cheltenham Gold Cup, obviously...
It is perfectly possible, for example, that Boris would choose, for political reasons, a course of action that would involve a larger loss of life condensed into the next year in preference to a somewhat lower loss of life that dragged on until the next elections. Either of these options would be science led.
The Australian, Canadian and New Zealand economies are very different to the UK’s, as is the American one.
Italy shut their schools etc in their affected regions on the 22nd February, at which point they had 79 recorded cases nationwide.
Avoided testing people wherever possible to try and cover it all up to keep the olympics.
I doubt that many of current cabinet, including Johnson, ever really gave a shit about "reinstating borders", but are determined to help rich people make a fast buck however destructively. That is literally all they believe in, they are fundamentalists.
Thank you.
That would not be science led.
The scientists would go public, Sturgeon would go public, Drakeford would go public.
And finally, any suggestion of manipulating this for electoral gain would destroy Boris for ever.
You need help.
Whole of China: 0.005% (5 per 100000), 80k out of 1.4bn
Whole of Hubei province: 0.15% (150 per 100000), 75k out of 57m (I've lost province figures, so I've approximated on a 'most' basis)
Wuhan prefecture: 0.5% ish (500 per 100000), 50-60k out of 9.7m
So David L's figures were for a low level subdivision, not China sea a whole.
So, UK is Hubei sized, Wuhan is Lombardy (8k cases) or London sized.
Given the chaos in Lombardy and Wuhan to reach 0.07% and 0.5% infection rates, respectively, herd immunity, even done gradually over 6-8 months, does not look remotely pain free. Unless they have seen some research that has found masses and masses of asymptomatics.
Overall the evidence shows that in most ways russian roulette is as safe as conventional sports, but not in every way. (Actually, safer: the risk of limb breakage, tendon strain and joint damage is nil.) So we should take further measures to improve its safety.
Great, particularly at this juncture, to see the government has a handle on probability and risk assessment.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
The EU commission says it 'disapproves' the US decision taken unilaterally and without consultation
Sally Cunliffe's party guests are travelling across the UK and Europe to mark her 50th birthday, but should she cancel such a gathering?
The fact people are even considering this is mind blowing. The answer is clearly yes, yes, yes.
(The current position being that "we might think about it" !)
It was also already clear that the virus had already been circulating undetected in Lombardy at least, as they could not trace the infection back to any known case nor any travel to affected areas.
We are not trying to stop it anymore we want to smooth the curve.
Why did they expect to be consulted?
You are a lot lot safer in a refuge area of a smart motorway than the hard shoulder of a regular motorway. But you are safer on the hard shoulder of a regular motorway than if you can't make it to a refuge area of a smart motorway.
Whether its right or wrong we dont know (and will never know as we wont run the parallel universes with alternative actions). The people best placed to make the call are the scientists with many inter disciplinary experts supporting them. It is a shit job for them and they do it with my support and gratitude.
Overall the evidence shows that limiting exposure to Covid-19 is a good idea, but not in every way. In some ways killing off lots of old people will massively reduce the burden on care services and the NHS, freeing up funds for vanity projects like the BoZo Bridge...
Erwin Schrödinger (Physics, 1933) — Quantum mysticism and global consciousness[17][18][19] and cruelty to cats
On 22 February, the government announced a new decree imposing the quarantine of more than 50,000 people from 11 different municipalities in Northern Italy. The quarantine zones are called the Red Zones and the areas in Lombardy and Veneto outside of them are called the Yellow Zones.[133] Penalties for violations range from a €206 fine to three months of imprisonment.[134] The Italian military and law enforcement agencies were instructed to secure and implement the lockdown.[135]
Schools were closed in ten municipalities in Lombardy, one in Veneto and one in Emilia Romagna. All public events were cancelled and some commercial activities[which?] were halted or were allowed to resume only until 6 p.m.[136][137] All religious services were cancelled.[138] Regional train services to the most affected areas were suspended, with trains skipping stops at Codogno, Maleo and Casalpusterlengo stations.[139][140]
From a purely economical point of view, it may, for example, be that the best option is to simply ignore the virus and accept that a number of mostly unproductive old and ill people will die. That could even save lives overall, given that the GDP of the country would be higher, and people live longer in rich countries. It would seem incredibly heartless though, and I can't imagine that any politician would pursue such a policy, even if it ultimately led to saved lives.
Please note that I am not criticising the work of the scientists in any way, nor am I claiming the Boris would ignore their conclusions. I am merely pointing out that there are indeed political choices to be made, and that disputing those political choices does not mean that one is dissing the scientists!
Firstly, it is idiotic to risk the running of the government in this way (irrespective of any arguments about the general population). It says rather that the system is very slow to react to developing information about the bug.
Secondly, if the government plan is "to let it spread a bit at this stage", don't you think they might have shared that it of information with us ?
Absurd.
Perhaps there are different valid approaches, all of them informed by science, that can be taken. Which one you choose then depends on what you are prioritizing.
For example, your number one priority could be any of -
Lowest total number of deaths.
Flattest peak infection numbers.
Avoidance of deep recession.
Protection of NHS capacity.
Etc.
If it so happens that all key objectives are aligned, i.e. are not in conflict with each other, then the political decision as to what to do becomes very easy, assuming the science is undisputed. But where there are conflicts - as there surely are - it is less so.
And ditto if the science itself is so uncertain that it is not really science at all but more educated guesswork.
https://twitter.com/maskedsingerfox/status/1237951450686218242?s=21
There is a time and a place for putting your faith in experts. This is one of them.
One of the judges: "I've seen it all; I've literally seen it all."
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/869827/Coronavirus_action_plan_-_a_guide_to_what_you_can_expect_across_the_UK.pdf
Page 10 3.9• Delay: slow the spread in this country, if it does take hold, lowering the peak impact and pushing it away from the winter season
AIUI a high proportion of the fatalities on the smart motorways have been people trying to evacuate their vehicles struck directly by other vehicles, rather than as a result of two vehicles colliding.
You’re safest of all well away from the road, then in your car, then as a pedestrian on the carriageway.