The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

theological wrote: »

There's no evidence that pulling kids out of school will improve things at the moment. When it is the right time I will support more measures. For now the UK are handling it well and the rate of spread has been slower than in other large European countries. It will get worse but if the right steps are given at the right time the UK will pull through it.

There's no evidence at the moment that the UK strategy is worse than any other. Hence why you have to use odd phrases like the UK will have a wake-up call.

I trust the experts advising the government more than you.

The reality is that there is going to be a diversity of scientific opinion here, and much of it will be attended with a degree of uncertainty, given that (a) there is much about this virus that is still unknown, and (b) epidemiological outcomes will depend partly on how people choose to behave when presents with certain incentives, information, encouragement, discouragement, etc, and predicting human behaviour is an inexact science.

My guess would be that all of the governments in Europe are seeing a broadly similar range of opinon, and are being presented with a broadly similar range of options, and a broadly similar degree of certainty or uncertainty as to what the outcome of any option might be. If we imagine that scientific advisers anywhere are all saying "Do this. It is 100% the best option" then I think we delude ourselves.

So, when different governments take different policy decisions, based on what I assume to be broadly similar scientific opinion across countries, there could be (at least) two things going on:

1. Different countries are differently situated. They may be at different stages of encounter with the virus. They may have different legal powers or be subjec to different constitutional constraints. Cultural differences between countries may mean that measures which would be more effective in country A might be less effective in country B, or that country C faces a circumstance (say, a high proportion of people living in multigenerational households, or a highly urbanised population) that country D does not. Country E may have a well-resourced health system; country F's may already be at breaking point. And so forth.

2. Different governments may prefer different strains of advice based on their own values, principles, ideology, objective, etc. Where scientific considerations don't unequivocally point to a single, only best course of action, political considerations may determine which course of action is to be preferred. The first question expert advisers will ask is "what outcome do you want to acheive?", and their advice will be tailored to that outcome, so political choices hugely influence the advice that governments receive right from the beginning.

Thus "I trust the experts advising my government" is a bit . . . well, maybe a bit naive. If my government, faced with probably similar scientific opinion to most European governments, is making a markedly different decision, I should want to know why. Maybe the advice is in fact different in my country, because of different circumstances. Or maybe my government chooses to seek/prefer this advice over that advice, in which case that's a political matter about which I, as a citizen, should be able to form a judgment, and I want to know about it.

HMG has a credibility problem because it's currently in the hands of a movement that has spent the last number of years rubbishing the advice of experts, openly not following it for admittedly political reasons; strenuously seeking out experts who will give them the advice which, for political reasons, they very much want to hear; and suppressing or simply refusing to obtain advice that they expect will be politically inconvenient. This record is unlikely to fill the British people with confidence in the present emergency.

And they exacerbate the problem by not being open now; policy initiatives are disclosed by being leaked off-the-record by unattributable lobby sources; ministers write articles for the newspapers rather than attend open press conferences and answer questions; COBRA decisions are made known by devolved governments because they are willing to speak openly and on the record while the Westminster government is not. If HMG wants people to have confidence in it, it needs to behave like a government that people should have confidence in. In that regard it has done itself a huge amount of damage over the past few years, and so far it shows no sign of realising this, or of caring about it if it has realised it.

theological wrote: »

Why has been explained pretty well however. That's my perspective. If it wasn't I would be a lot more worried.

Oversimplifying a little, what we seem to have learned is that the British government prefers the approach favoured by behavioural scientists over the approach favoured by epidemiologists.

What we haven't learned is why. And since I think this is a political choice*, I think it's a legimate matter of public interest.

* To avoid doubt, if they made the opposite choice, that would also be a political choice. I don't criticise them for making a political choice; that's their job. But citizens are entitled to interrogate, scrutinise, challenge that choice. And I don't think HMG can hide behind "it's what the experts advised!" It's what some experts advised; why did HMG accept their advice rather than that of others? What advice did they seek? What questions did they put to those from whom they sought advice? What are HMG's objectives, that they asked the experts for advice on how to achieve? Etc, etc.

theological wrote: »

I trust the experts advising the government more than you.

theological wrote: »

To link to the same video again. No I'm not kidding.

I hate to burst your bubble, but that video proves that you can't trust the experts advising/defending the government: in the second half of the clip, Patrick Vallance states that risk of transmission of Covid-19 in mass gatherings is relatively low and the real risk is from individuals in small groups. I don't know where he's getting his epidemiological information from, but many of the initial clusters in different countries are directly related to mass gatherings - e.g. the religious conference in Mulhouse, responsible for the worst cluster in France, or the Biogen conference in Boston.

Anyone with a basic training in epidemiology could tell you that these environments always pose a risk, mixing together a wide variety of people of indeterminate disease status, many in a state of physiological stress due to travel, long hours, late nights, too much coffee/alcohol, etc, and in close proximity to each other and where physical contact is actively encouraged as a sales tactic or a sign of brotherhood or team building.

Any farmer, with no formal epidemiological training, would tell you that the biggest risk of sickness in a herd comes from mixing animals from different sources; any university lecturer will tell you that the peak of respiratory illness amongst students comes in the first trimester, when the freshers of diverse origin bring their naïve immune systems to the party.

That is medical fact, of the kind you were talking about yesterday. For a supposed expert to go on national television and say "yeah, but it's no big deal really" is bordering on medical negligence. :mad:

theological wrote: »

There's no evidence that pulling kids out of school will improve things at the moment.

theological wrote: »

There's no evidence at the moment that the UK strategy is worse than any other.

You're right: there's no evidence at the moment. Because that evidence can/will only become available after the fact. The most chilling part of Patrick Vallance's interview is the defeatism. Now it may be that he's told Johnson "tough luck, mate, it's here to stay and there's nothing we can do to stop it" - which would be a reasonable position, and one with which I agree; but to go on TV and state that "the big stuff doesn't matter and we'll do other things when the time is right" - that's downright irresponsible.

theological wrote: »

When it is the right time I will support more measures. For now the UK are handling it well and the rate of spread has been slower than in other large European countries. It will get worse but if the right steps are given at the right time the UK will pull through it.

Actually the most chilling thing is that people like you have swallowed the BS and are quite happy to believe any old nonsense that comes with the Downing Street stamp of approval.

Brexit all over again.

John_Rambo wrote: »

Is this going to be another case where Brexitiers will regret their actions? I'm no expert, but I'm seeing a good bit of regret from ignorant but educated voters and I'm wondering will this be the true realisation of the unity and unrealised advantages that the partnership offers?

Do you all think the UK be exempt from any stimulus?

If we change the definition of "stimulus" from a straightforward injection of funds to one that encompasses the wider availability of vaccines and medical treatments, then yes, the UK will be exempt - because they have chosen to disassociate themselves from the European Medicines Agency, so every drug, every vaccine, ever medical appliance (including all those Made-in-Britain ventilators that Johnson was calling for) will have to be approved by the UK's own under-funded, under-staffed Agency.

The rest of Europe will benefit from instant recognition and approval of new treatment protocols under the highly efficient supervision of the EMA; the UK will have to choose between speed or efficiency ... and we've seen in the US what happens when you #takebackcontrol of medicine for purely nationalist reasons (doubly ironic that Trump followed up on that gaff by trying to buy German experience for his exclusive use. )

theological wrote: »

Why has been explained pretty well however. That's my perspective. If it wasn't I would be a lot more worried.

You seem to align with this Tory government on pretty much everything. So your perspective is set by the agenda of this government rather than you deciding for yourself.

coastwatch wrote: »

Hundreds of UK doctors and scientists dont share your view. They want the UK government to publish
the evidence that supports the appoach of stopping widespread community testing, contact tracing, and the reliance on herd immunity.

"Public health experts and hundreds of doctors and scientists at home and abroad are urging the UK government to change its strategy against coronavirus, amid fears it will mean the epidemic “lets rip” through the population."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/coronavirus-health-experts-fear-epidemic-will-let-rip-through-uk

wrong kind of experts

CelticRambler wrote: »

... but despite numerous requests, you're unable to give us a single example of your independent thoughts. Everything you've stated on this thread has been bracketed by the caveat "I trust the government" - even though that same government refuses to publish the basis for their decisions. You haven't been able to provide a single source for any of your beliefs other than pronouncements by government spokesmen, and at least some of which can be refuted.

There appears to be a "What would Boris do?" movement, wristbands with "WWBD?" out shortly

newport2 wrote: »

There appears to be a "What would Boris do?" movement, wristbands with "WWBD?" out shortly

Presumably in different versions for left and right wrists? :pac: