Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

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

1…8081838586…331

Comments

  • #2462
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    theological wrote: »
    Joe Public: I'd like an answer to my question. You can find the link to the article that I gave earlier.

    So: i ask you for some back up for Fergusons claims and you respond by deflecting to some other model. I've never bigged up the us model or claimed it was necessarily 100% accurate. They amended it yesterday so it probably wasnt. Who really knows what the ultimate toll will be?

    So again: what about Ferguson model? Where did he get 7,000? Where does he get 20,000? Sell me. Work me.


  • #2463
    bob mcbob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 970 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    Thanks. I have seen some of those. I know the uk model was updated yesterday and shows the peak may be sooner than anticipated.

    I dont know about these models personally, just that Ferguson's is by far the biggest outlier, predicting 7,000-20,000 deaths. Thats why it interests me. His low figure obviously not applicable anymore so just wondering how the worst outcome will fare. It's not really looking good, is it?

    No

    I have done some limited modelling myself at work, it really is a case of garbage in, garbage out. Currently nobody knows how many people are / have been infected. Without this, all these models are guesswork.

    I have seen figures of 1%, 5% up to 20% of populations being infected. This obviously impacts the death rate.

    My own view is that the number of people infected is high and this started spreading in Europe much earlier than we think.


  • #2464
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    So: i ask you for some back up for Fergusons claims and you respond by deflecting to some other model. I've never bigged up the us model or claimed it was necessarily 100% accurate. They amended it yesterday so it probably wasnt. Who really knows what the ultimate toll will be?

    So again: what about Ferguson model? Where did he get 7,000? Where does he get 20,000? Sell me. Work me.

    I won't answer this question until you answer mine about why you found the US study preferable to Ferguson's work. I've provided a link earlier in the thread where he expressed his disagreement with the study.

    We need to discuss in good faith. That means not deflecting when I'm asking a fair question.


  • #2465
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    theological wrote: »
    I won't answer this question until you answer mine about why you found the US study preferable to Ferguson's work. I've provided a link earlier in the thread where he expressed his disagreement with the study.

    We need to discuss in good faith. That means not deflecting when I'm asking a fair question.

    Where do you get the word "preferable"? I never hinted at any preference for any model. I wasn't bigging up the US model as being a font of undeniable truth. I'm not pretending to be an expert on these data predictions. Ferguson can study their modelling and find all the fault he wants. What about his modelling, you know the one that speculated a low figure of 7,000 thats already being shredded.

    The US model might prove to be inaccurate, but it's still up in the air. Is Ferguson still even in the ball park? Looks out of the game to me.


  • #2466
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,464 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Scotland:
    In hospital: 1,781 (+10)
    In ICU: 212 (+2)
    Total confirmed cases: 4,957 (+392)
    Total deaths with confirmed COVID-19: 447 (+81)


  • Advertisement
  • #2467
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,140 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Have the UK government published the expert advice on which they said they were relying? And does it state that testing was not required at high levels and the best course was to hold back on direct action?

    I have heard it stated numerous times, but any expert advice I have read on most subjects dealing with possible outcomes is never as black and white and it is being made out to be. But maybe it was in this case that the experts did indeed tell the UK which was the best option.

    Can anyone provide a link to the reports that the UK relied on?


  • #2468
    bob mcbob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 970 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Scotland:
    In hospital: 1,781 (+10)
    In ICU: 212 (+2)
    Total confirmed cases: 4,957 (+392)
    Total deaths with confirmed COVID-19: 447 (+81)

    Ok so as these deaths were in hospital, that means 91 new hospital admissions yesterday.

    The day before it looks like there were 90 new admissions. It looks like the figures of new admissions into hospital seems to be flattening.


  • #2469
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Have the UK government published the expert advice on which they said they were relying? And does it state that testing was not required at high levels and the best course was to hold back on direct action?

    I have heard it stated numerous times, but any expert advice I have read on most subjects dealing with possible outcomes is never as black and white and it is being made out to be. But maybe it was in this case that the experts did indeed tell the UK which was the best option.

    Can anyone provide a link to the reports that the UK relied on?

    You have the use of Google. Fortunately so do I. Here is the scientific evidence that the UK advice is based on if you want to read it.

    I'm happy that the government have been listening to the chief medical officers and scientific officers on this and we hear more about their approach on a daily basis in the press conference.
    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    The US model might prove to be inaccurate, but it's still up in the air. Is Ferguson still even in the ball park? Looks out of the game to me.
    The key question is why is this your belief. I'd love to get into it but provide the reasoning.


  • #2470
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,140 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Thank you for that.

    As I suspected, they don't determine that any particular course of action should be taken, but that there are a variety and each has pro and cons.

    Here is a snipped from the report on school closues (Feb)
    Timing of SC
    14. The consensus view is that a long duration school closures (6 weeks or longer) are most
    effective if started as early as possible. They are less sensitive to timing that shorter school
    closures
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/873746/11-spi-m-o-consensus-view-on-the-impact-of-mass-school-closures.pdf

    Bold is my emphasis. Yet they didn't close the schools until later. Now, I am not qualified to be able to state which option was the best, and none of us will really know until much more of this has played out, but I am educated enough to be able to question why one path was chosen over another and not simply accept the blanket response of 'following scientific advice'. Because most people know that in such a new, and fast moving issue, science doesn't have a definitive answer and so saying 'following scientific advice' all depends on who, the assumptions and what they were actually asked to provide.

    So your position what they followed advice fails to take account of the fact that they still made decisions on exactly what path to take.


  • #2471
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    theological wrote: »
    The key question is why is this your belief. I'd love to get into it but provide the reasoning.

    I'm looking at a model that predicts a low water mark of 7,000 total deaths in the uk, when that figure has already being exceeded, and you're defl..., sorry, i mean looking for reasoning.

    Homestly, i think I'd be better off reasoning with that tiger that tested positive in the bronx zoo or somewhere. Mightnt make much sense but at least I'd get the odd roar out of it.

    For the avoidance of doubt i am in no way calling Neil Ferguson an idiot or questioning his credentials. I'm just looking at his figures and asking why they're so jaw droppingly optimistic. Is there something there I'm missing? Some other way they could be interpreted?

    I'm open to suggestions. I have one theory myself but it's no more than speculative.


  • Advertisement
  • #2472
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Thank you for that.

    As I suspected, they don't determine that any particular course of action should be taken, but that there are a variety and each has pro and cons.

    Here is a snipped from the report on school closues (Feb)

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/873746/11-spi-m-o-consensus-view-on-the-impact-of-mass-school-closures.pdf

    Bold is my emphasis. Yet they didn't close the schools until later.

    So your position what they followed advice fails to take account of the fact that they still made decisions on exactly what path to take.


    This is selective out of context quotation from the document from what else is in there.

    I've been through my position on school closures before. Their effects are limited as a number of studies have said. The UK closures came a week after Ireland's. There's no evidence that not closing the schools as early as Ireland had a significant impact, so I consider it a moot point.

    I'm pretty sure that the right steps have been taken at the right time.


  • #2473
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,140 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    theological wrote: »
    This is selective out of context quotation from the document from what else is in there.

    I've been through my position on school closures before. Their effects are limited as a number of studies have said. The UK closures came a week after Ireland's. There's no evidence that not closing the schools as early as Ireland had a significant impact, so I consider it a moot point.

    I'm pretty sure that the right steps have been taken at the right time.

    Yes it is selective, but that is the whole point. There is no definitive 'right' answer so I am not sure on what basis you are sure that the right steps were taken at the right time.

    Is it based on anything more than the government saying they did?

    Have you compared the actions of SK, NZ, and some other countries and asked why they have less and what they did differently? Did they choose the wrong options at the wrong time and just got lucky?

    I think the fundamental difference is that I am not simply willing to accept, particularly given the many bungled issues that have arisen, that they got everything right simply on their word for it.

    The main sticking point is that they ignored all expert advice in terms of Brexit, telling people again and again to simply believe and be positive, yet all of a sudden you believe that they followed scientific advice without other considerations? In defies belief that they would change so quickly.


  • #2474
    threeball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,164 ✭✭✭threeball


    theological wrote: »
    This is selective out of context quotation from the document from what else is in there.

    I've been through my position on school closures before. Their effects are limited as a number of studies have said. The UK closures came a week after Ireland's. There's no evidence that not closing the schools as early as Ireland had a significant impact, so I consider it a moot point.

    I'm pretty sure that the right steps have been taken at the right time.

    Hence the nearly 1000 deaths a day, something which Spain and Italy only reached at peak and were very late to introduce measures in comparison to when they had their first cases. At the moment you have a similar number of deaths to the US, a country 6 times larger and whose peak is predicted 6 days earlier.


  • #2475
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Yes it is selective, but that is the whole point. There is no definitive 'right' answer so I am not sure on what basis you are sure that the right steps were taken at the right time.

    Is it based on anything more than the government saying they did?

    Have you compared the actions of SK, NZ, and some other countries and asked why they have less and what they did differently? Did they choose the wrong options at the wrong time and just got lucky?

    I think the fundamental difference is that I am not simply willing to accept, particularly given the many bungled issues that have arisen, that they got everything right simply on their word for it.

    The main sticking point is that they ignored all expert advice in terms of Brexit, telling people again and again to simply believe and be positive, yet all of a sudden you believe that they followed scientific advice without other considerations? In defies belief that they would change so quickly.


    It seems like we're in the game of asking for links I posted several pages ago again. School closures generally have little impact (the PDF you linked to also says this). Perhaps a part of the arsenal for defeating the virus, but very much tertiary to the larger measures.

    Here's a big blob of text from that article I linked to:
    The UCL-led study concludes that the evidence to support the closure of schools to combat Covid-19 is “very weak”, and statistics from influenza outbreaks suggest school closures “could have relatively small effects on a virus with Covid-19’s high transmissibility and apparent low clinical effect on schoolchildren”.
    The research team reviewed 16 studies of recent outbreaks of other coronaviruses, including the 2003 Sars epidemic in mainland China, Hong Kong and Singapore, and found that school closures did not help control the epidemic.
    “We know from previous studies that school closures are likely to have the greatest effect if the virus has low transmissibility and attack rates are higher in children. This is the opposite of Covid-19,” said the study’s lead author, Prof Russell Viner, of UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health.


  • #2476
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Yes it is selective, but that is the whole point. There is no definitive 'right' answer so I am not sure on what basis you are sure that the right steps were taken at the right time.

    Is it based on anything more than the government saying they did?

    Have you compared the actions of SK, NZ, and some other countries and asked why they have less and what they did differently? Did they choose the wrong options at the wrong time and just got lucky?

    I think the fundamental difference is that I am not simply willing to accept, particularly given the many bungled issues that have arisen, that they got everything right simply on their word for it.

    The main sticking point is that they ignored all expert advice in terms of Brexit, telling people again and again to simply believe and be positive, yet all of a sudden you believe that they followed scientific advice without other considerations? In defies belief that they would change so quickly.

    Michael Gove, 2016: "People have had enough of experts."


  • #2477
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Joe_ Public wrote: »
    Michael Gove, 2016: "People have had enough of experts."


    Despite the fact that I'm the one who is quoting from an actual scientific study on the matter.


  • #2478
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    theological wrote: »
    Despite the fact that I'm the one who is quoting from an actual scientific study on the matter.

    Oh you all love your experts right now, that's for sure. Somebody has to be the fall guy.


  • #2479
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,140 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    theological wrote: »
    Despite the fact that I'm the one who is quoting from an actual scientific study on the matter.

    Again, you seem intent on missing the point.

    Brexit - people are tired of expert. Forecasters are always wrong etc.

    Covid-19 - We listened to scientific advice.

    What changed? And as you acknowledged scientific advice is not definitive, there is no clear simple answer. So even the term "following scientific advice" is meaningless as clearly many options could have been taken.

    Are you really of the opinion that Gove, Raab, Johnson etchas suddenly lost the position that he knows best and simply accepted what he was being told, despite their being evidence of the contrary in other countries?


  • #2480
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    One very tiny good thing here is when the public inquiry gets under way Dom Cummings will not be able to dodge this time. No hiding place.


  • #2481
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Again, you seem intent on missing the point.

    Brexit - people are tired of expert. Forecasters are always wrong etc.

    Covid-19 - We listened to scientific advice.

    What changed? And as you acknowledged scientific advice is not definitive, there is no clear simple answer. So even the term "following scientific advice" is meaningless as clearly many options could have been taken.

    Are you really of the opinion that Gove, Raab, Johnson etchas suddenly lost the position that he knows best and simply accepted what he was being told, despite their being evidence of the contrary in other countries?


    For Brexit I'll continue discussing on the correct thread when this is all over. I'm not in agreement obviously but the virus is more important.

    Nothing changed.

    They are following the advice of their advisors. On the same page at press briefings and following the advice that the scientific advisor and the medical advisor are suggesting. Do you have any reason to suggest that this isn't true? (Edit: Speculation doesn't count as reason)


  • Advertisement
  • #2482
    devnull
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 11,919 Mod ✭✭✭✭devnull


    England: 765 deaths (vast majority seem to be historical, very little from yesterday - data source)
    241 were from the weekend or earlier
    100 from 6th April
    284 from 7th April
    140 from 8th April

    Wonder why the delay in the report of so many deaths and if this is normal and how the numbers dying per day look since it seems the reporting is a poor guide to how many die a day when today for instance, they're announcing 765 deaths, only 140 were yesterday.

    Seems to be explained by this note:
    Confirmation of COVID-19 diagnosis, death notification and reporting in central figures can take up to several days and the hospitals providing the data are under significant operational pressure. This means that the totals reported at 5pm on each day may not include all deaths that occurred on that day or on recent prior days.

    Scotland: 81 deaths

    Wales: 41 deaths
    under-reported and only covers half a day according to Public Health Wales

    Northern Ireland to follow any moment.

    Wales figures are scary, that suggests a big increase if the second half of the day was anything close to the first.


  • #2483
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,140 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    theological wrote: »
    For Brexit I'll continue discussing on the correct thread when this is all over. I'm not in agreement obviously but the virus is more important.

    Nothing changed.

    They are following the advice of their advisors. On the same page at press briefings and following the advice that the scientific advisor and the medical advisor are suggesting. Do you have any reason to suggest that this isn't true? (Edit: Speculation doesn't count as reason)

    I already did in relation to school closures. You dismissed it as being taken out of context.

    It is pretty clear that you simply do not understand how expert advice in terms of future events is prepared. It never stated one way or another. That is not it purpose. It is aimed at providing clear options, with some advice on which may be more favourable than others. It does not, and the reports you linked to show it to be the case, prescribe a particular course of action.

    I suggest it isn't true because it makes no sense. No definitive option would have been given, so no path was entirely inline with scientific advice. And Whitty himself, which you continue to ignore, has stated that testing was not focused on and something they should have done. So is he wrong now or then?


  • #2484
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Apparently I don't understand because I pointed out that the document you linked to suggested school closures would only have a very minor effect and I quoted from a report from a UCL study saying the same thing in consideration of the virus.

    But sure ok. Forgive me for including relevant facts in making my case.


  • #2485
    Tea Shock
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 345 ✭✭Tea Shock


    I don't know how long school closures were in other parts of the world at previous outbreaks that had a potential to become pandemic - or how valid those are to compare to Coronavirus - but the CDC also has done a scientific analysis on the effects of school closures. While the acknowledge that school closures of shorter duration has little impact, they do state that longer closures (of 8+ weeks) "may have greater impact in terms of overall transmission". - while acknowledging that longer closures brings about a new set of potential issues with more students congregating outside of school which can be more difficult to control.

    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/considerations-for-school-closure.pdf


    The UK Government sat on one side of the fence of a week or two - and then jumped to the other side.


  • #2486
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,140 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    theological wrote: »
    Apparently I don't understand because I pointed out that the document you linked to suggested school closures would only have a very minor effect and I quoted from a report from a UCL study saying the same thing in consideration of the virus.

    But sure ok. Forgive me for including relevant facts in making my case.

    Again, you simply prove my point. One report says one thing, another says something similar but slightly different.

    It is you that have hitched you wagon to this 'following scientific advice' despite even yourself acknowledging that that doesn't mean anything by itself and the fact that almost the entire cabinet, and the PM's closest advisor have been openly hostile to experts for the last few years. You still have yet to explain why the sudden change in the entire cabinet, you seem to just accept that it happened and move on.

    I don't agree with such an approach but either way we are where we are and the outcome will be as it is regardless of our discussions.

    But clearly, since we are both talking past other on this I think it probably best we leave it at that.


  • #2487
    theological
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,831 ✭✭✭theological


    Despite your desperate effort to talk about Brexit on this thread I'm not going to.

    This thread is about the virus and the government has been following the advice of the medical advisors and has been working closely with them. There's no good reason to suggest this isn't the case.


  • #2488
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,140 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    theological wrote: »
    Despite your desperate effort to talk about Brexit on this thread I'm not going to.

    This thread is about the virus and the government has been following the advice of the medical advisors and has been working closely with them. There's no good reason to suggest this isn't the case.

    I am not trying to talk about Brexit, I am making the very reasonable comparison to the approach of those in the current UK government in regards to Brexit, namely that they rubbished experts to their position now that experts are being listened to and in fact not only listened to but everything they say is accepted and acted upon.

    You are trying to use the term Brexit to create an reason not to answer. There are many examples of the government not following expert advice, Brexit is just the latest and best known of them.

    Here is another. JRM stated that those that died in Grenfell should have ignored the expert advice and taking their own action. IDS ignored expert advice when told that universal credit would create loads of problems. There is a theme there.

    You still cannot explain that change, because it isn't possible. Everything to you is fine and dandy, everything is right and none should question people motives or bona fides.


  • #2489
    gmisk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,943 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    It's clear a lot of people in the UK at least aren't taking this seriously.
    660 parties had to be shut down in a single weekend in Manchester.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-52221688


  • #2490
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,072 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    theological wrote: »
    You have the use of Google. Fortunately so do I. Here is the scientific evidence that the UK advice is based on if you want to read it.

    I'm happy that the government have been listening to the chief medical officers and scientific officers on this and we hear more about their approach on a daily basis in the press conference.


    The key question is why is this your belief. I'd love to get into it but provide the reasoning.

    Is this the same advice that I linked a report to that seems to be getting the blame?

    Special Report: Johnson listened to his scientists about coronavirus - but they were slow to sound the alarm

    There is a snippet in there, the scientists only give the information to the government, it is up to the government to act on the information. Somehow I see this ending up as the politicians blaming the advice and those giving the advice saying they gave everything to the government who failed to act.

    But let's clap for the leader of this government and be happy with the way they have reacted while the people at the coal face warned about PPE and they are the ones dying right now,

    Coronavirus: Doctor who warned prime minister about PPE dies with COVID-19

    theological wrote: »
    This is selective out of context quotation from the document from what else is in there.

    I've been through my position on school closures before. Their effects are limited as a number of studies have said. The UK closures came a week after Ireland's. There's no evidence that not closing the schools as early as Ireland had a significant impact, so I consider it a moot point.

    I'm pretty sure that the right steps have been taken at the right time.


    So in effect we in Ireland closed our schools 3 weeks before the UK, seeing as we are 2 weeks behind the UK in the progression of the epidemic. Are you still happy that the government followed either flawed advice or ignored the advice that you suspect Ireland also had and acted, in your views, 3 weeks earlier?


  • Advertisement
  • #2491
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,140 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    gmisk wrote: »
    It's clear a lot of people in the UK at least aren't taking this seriously.
    600 parties had to be shut down in a single weekend in Manchester.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-52221688

    That is quite incredible. What a waste of police resources, never mind putting the greater society at risk.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement