A lot of this is guesswork, but why aren't the media digging into this? Because it might embarrass the govt?
Yes. The servile duplicity of the media in not calling out the utter shambles this government has made and the thousands of deaths they've caused is sickening.
Well, if the UK followed Ireland statistically, there would be 4 000 deaths, not 10 000. I suppose a lot of the media don't care, as long as Boris is canonized. 6 000 excess deaths?
We have to be careful with the assertions here. We do not know if these are truly excess deaths yet. We will have to look at the data properly retrospectively.
Having said that, the numbers are big and almost certainly worse than comparable countries (other than the US) and yes, the media are giving the government essentially a free ride. That is so morally contemptible when we are talking about potentially thousands of extra deaths. But then apparently, Boris leave ICU was the GREATEST NEWS EVER so we know where the print media is coming from...
Massim Taleb has another of his impenetrable tweets, that masks may reduce exposure to viruses by 30%, but " by convexity", this will be more, even 95%. Now good people, this seems to be about mathematical curves, often used in investment, so please elucidate. Mr Taleb is not a great one for explanations.
(Not that I wish it any different for that Fair Town!)
Well, now.
Darlo - like many of the northern towns that have no longer have a reason to exist post-industry... No one goes there, and no one leaves. There are people who live in Sunderland who have never been to Newcastle. Young people, old people, regular people.
And that's why. Low transmission rates. The more cosmopolitan and/or wealthy, the more travel and connections people have.
(Not that I wish it any different for that Fair Town!)
Well, now.
Darlo - like many of the northern towns that have no longer have a reason to exist post-industry... No one goes there, and no one leaves. There are people who live in Sunderland who have never been to Newcastle. Young people, old people, regular people.
And that's why. Low transmission rates. The more cosmopolitan and/or wealthy, the more travel and connections people have.
How long before the tories start blaming "citizens of nowhere" and/or "rootless cosmopolitans" for the spread of the virus?
So there is public evidence, as well as assertion, to support the argument that UK policies and the timings of their introductions are based on the scientific advice.
Did the scientific evidence change between when Boris was going with "herd immunity" and when he switched to quarantine?
Well, essentially, they knew more about the transmission & fatality rates. The original models were based on covid being more similar to flu than it in fact is.
As data came in from other parts of the world, the information on the disease led to more accurate modelling.
(Not that I wish it any different for that Fair Town!)
Well, now.
Darlo - like many of the northern towns that have no longer have a reason to exist post-industry... No one goes there, and no one leaves. There are people who live in Sunderland who have never been to Newcastle. Young people, old people, regular people.
And that's why. Low transmission rates. The more cosmopolitan and/or wealthy, the more travel and connections people have.
O.
ISWYM.
I live in a place with a very transient population - they come, and they go, at a bewildering rate - cosmopolitan, but not exactly wealthy...
(Not that I wish it any different for that Fair Town!)
Well, now.
Darlo - like many of the northern towns that have no longer have a reason to exist post-industry... No one goes there, and no one leaves. There are people who live in Sunderland who have never been to Newcastle. Young people, old people, regular people.
And that's why. Low transmission rates. The more cosmopolitan and/or wealthy, the more travel and connections people have.
How long before the tories start blaming "citizens of nowhere" and/or "rootless cosmopolitans" for the spread of the virus?
This time round it was half term skiing breaks to Italy that really did the damage.
Well, essentially, they knew more about the transmission & fatality rates. The original models were based on covid being more similar to flu than it in fact is.
As data came in from other parts of the world, the information on the disease led to more accurate modelling.
All true, but the timing. The timeline mooted above shows that SOMEBODY already knew that before Boris took action on it. Several somebodies. It wasn't new news. Hence claims about the timing of his actions being based on science are untrue.
Well, essentially, they knew more about the transmission & fatality rates. The original models were based on covid being more similar to flu than it in fact is.
As data came in from other parts of the world, the information on the disease led to more accurate modelling.
All true, but the timing. The timeline mooted above shows that SOMEBODY already knew that before Boris took action on it. Several somebodies. It wasn't new news. Hence claims about the timing of his actions being based on science are untrue.
Indeed. There was nothing learned between March 12 and March 23 that was all that new. For example, here's Boris Johnson on March 12 admitting:
Some people compare it to seasonal flu. Alas, that is not right. Due to the lack of immunity this disease is more dangerous. It is going to spread further and I must level with you, I must level with the British public: many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.
Note that it took almost two weeks from this statement to the kind of lockdown now in place. This seems to be a corollary to something I mentioned on another thread, that when described in accurate and neutral language most people will not believe conservatives are proposing the things that they're actually proposing. In this case the proposal was that a deadly disease be allowed to run unchecked and kill off tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of British subjects. The corollary of this is that there are always others who will go even further and make up fraudulent post facto excuses about why "let them die and decrease the surplus population" was actually the reasonable decision at the time.
Bishop's Finger upthread mentioned that we will be feeling the effects of this pandemic for years to come.
Yes, especially nine months from now. (Sorry, I couldn't resist).
And, in truth that crop will be with around for up to 100+ years
Which does bring up the question of genetic memory. Genetic memory (psychology) ... It is based on the idea that common experiences of a species become incorporated into its genetic code, not by a Lamarckian process that encodes specific memories but by a much vaguer tendency to encode a readiness to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. (Wikipedia definition).
I know there is a study that suggests the effects of the Dutch Famine of 1944 can still be seen in the code of the Dutch generation of that time.
Last night Rachel Maddow (MSNBC-USA) talked with a physician who works in an Emergency Unit at a major hospital. He mentioned that often times, when there is no ventilator available, they will put the patient on a CPAP machine which will force air into the lungs.
CPAPs are machines that are used for sleep apnea. It helps keep the airways open so the person can continue to breathe. Myself, I use a BiPAP machine that does the same thing only with variable pressure so I can more easily breathe out. I swallow too much air using a CPAP.
No matter what party he belongs to, he obviously has far more sense, understanding, and ability, than the floundering f*ckwit he (presumably) still acknowledges as his leader...
Is the POTUS head of a political party? I thought that was the British system, and not the American.
Last night Rachel Maddow (MSNBC-USA) talked with a physician who works in an Emergency Unit at a major hospital. He mentioned that often times, when there is no ventilator available, they will put the patient on a CPAP machine which will force air into the lungs.
CPAPs are machines that are used for sleep apnea. It helps keep the airways open so the person can continue to breathe. Myself, I use a BiPAP machine that does the same thing only with variable pressure so I can more easily breathe out. I swallow too much air using a CPAP.
Whatever will help keep people alive.
it's good that they have the option, but this is a devil's choice, because (I've been told) a CPAP aerosolizes the patient's breath--and virus. Which I rather doubt they have the means to contain, with even virus-proof masks so unobtainable.
I've researched news reports from the end of February onwards and it is quite clear that Chris Witty and Patrick Vallance were giving scientific advice to COBRA meetings from the start. Indeed it was Chris Witty who provided the rationale for the initial policy of containment, when it was first presented publicly.
There was a parallel story that Dominic Cummings was a proponent of the "it's flu, let them get it and if it kills off some old people, well ....." policy and also a report that he had changed his mind by March 12. Cummings' ideas would certainly have influenced Boris both before and after his change of mind.
It's hard to believe that the original policy of containment, which rapidly proved to be insufficient in the face of the mounting statistics and the prediction models , was not backed at the time by both the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser. I am no fan of Boris Johnson, but unlike the USA (the Trump-Fauci show), and on the basis of what I have read, it is reasonable to conclude that the scientific advice and political decisions were pretty closely aligned from the beginning of March onwards.
I think it may be reasonable to argue (as I think Neil Ferguson would) that there was a period early on when government policy did not take sufficient account of the dire predictions of the Imperial College model. But if blame is to be laid at feet then it seems to me it would be wrong to lay that all at the feet of the Prime Minister. The Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser should share in that.
I think what's more important bis what happens from here on in. Boris is waxing lyrical about the NHS saving his life. That should at least count for something in terms of subsequent actions. Yes, he was caught on the backfoot initially and yes, tragically, I think we are seeing the dreadful results of initial hesitation on the lock-down.
I'd heard of medics - friends of friends - predicting Imperial College scale figures before the change of plan. So, yes, he could have acted sooner but on fairness unlike Trump he hasn't been denying the science. Not that it's a competition.
People like Priti (No Pity) Patel are the ones who frighten me.
It's hard to believe that the original policy of containment, which rapidly proved to be insufficient in the face of the mounting statistics and the prediction models, was not backed at the time by both the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser. I am no fan of Boris Johnson, but unlike the USA (the Trump-Fauci show), and on the basis of what I have read, it is reasonable to conclude that the scientific advice and political decisions were pretty closely aligned from the beginning of March onwards.
Again, why is it "hard to believe" that a politician might not follow the advice of his scientific advisors or that it's "reasonable to conclude" automatically that they did so? I don't think there's a fancy Latin name for the informal fallacy of "giving the benefit of the doubt to people who have repeated demonstrated that they don't deserve it", but there should be.
This kind of reflexive credulity and willingness to manufacture excuses post facto is a hindrance at the best of times. Right now it's downright dangerous.
It's hard to believe that the original policy of containment, which rapidly proved to be insufficient in the face of the mounting statistics and the prediction models , was not backed at the time by both the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser.
Firstly what Crœsos said -- secondly if you read that Reuters piece it is fairly clear that one of the problems with expert advice to the government is that the menu of possible options is going to be politically predetermined.
If you start from the premise that you want to keep the country completely open for business, and don't have any plan to bulk up the NHS massively in a short space of time then the only realistic option is 'herd immunity' even if the scientists advise that it hasn't really been tried.
This kind of reflexive credulity and willingness to manufacture excuses post facto is a hindrance at the best of times. Right now it's downright dangerous.
As I said in the other place, one of the points of note in the UK is that a government is rarely if ever challenged in the middle of a crisis. There might be an inquiry, which will conclude that no one was to blame and it was a systemic failure.
There'll be a book or film long after all the guilty parties have moved on - the writer/director will be written up in the arts pages as 'bold' and might win an award.
I'm an ex British public servant and know all about political predetermination of presented evidence and agenda. My argument is not based on reflexive rationalisations.
Chris Witty and Patrick Vallance stood beside the Prime Minister as chief representatives of the medical and scientific communities. They did not only support the policy of containment, they presented and expanded the rationale for the policy.
If they had reservations about the soundness of that policy at the time, they had options which they did not exercise. I am reporting on their behaviour. By all means call them culpable. By all means point to the minimising of the risks revealed by the Imperial College model. But do not make this purely an overriding of scientific and medical opinion in favour of political and economic expediencies. The evidence of the behaviour of Witty and Vallance does not support your hypothesis.
Right on, Doc. My argument is that they freely backed the wrong horse. Neither is bound by collective Cabinet responsibility so they were not compelled to do that.
Surely, there has been a conflict, or maybe conflicts, between different epidemiologists, virologists, statisticians, etc. This isn't surprising, or unprecedented. No doubt, there have also been political pressures, again, quite normal. Have the latter determined the former?
It's a good question quetz. I don't assume that either Witty or Vallance lack integrity. As Doc says, their judgements in backing the wrong horse may be based on the way they assessed the variety of scientific evidence, outside of political considerations.
I think they have some explaining to do. But I'm not about to find them guilty of trimming their advice to suit political considerations. None of us knows that was going on. Feel free to have suspicions.
A question that has been puzzling me regarding some advice given re COVID-19. A lot of the info we are being given here (New Zealand)says to ensure eggs and meat are properly cooked, but doesn't say why. I'm not about to start eating raw eggs, or even rare steak, but can anyone come up with an explanation for this advice?
I think it may be reasonable to argue (as I think Neil Ferguson would) that there was a period early on when government policy did not take sufficient account of the dire predictions of the Imperial College model. But if blame is to be laid at feet then it seems to me it would be wrong to lay that all at the feet of the Prime Minister. The Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser should share in that.
So there is public evidence, as well as assertion, to support the argument that UK policies and the timings of their introductions are based on the scientific advice.
You said nothing about the prime minister. I'm happy to drop Boris and go back to your original claim, which you now admit was wrong.
A question that has been puzzling me regarding some advice given re COVID-19. A lot of the info we are being given here (New Zealand)says to ensure eggs and meat are properly cooked, but doesn't say why. I'm not about to start eating raw eggs, or even rare steak, but can anyone come up with an explanation for this advice?
Don't know if this is relevant, but in France there's been a concern that people locked down who don't normally cook will get good old-fashioned food poisoning because of improper preparation.
Not just food poisoning -- because of the ban on alcohol sales, entrepreneurial South Africans are now fermenting pineapple beer or homemade witblitz (crude moonshine) in garages and back storerooms. This never ends well.
Not just food poisoning -- because of the ban on alcohol sales, entrepreneurial South Africans are now fermenting pineapple beer or homemade witblitz (crude moonshine) in garages and back storerooms. This never ends well.
I'm told that the reason off-licences are considered essential businesses in the UK is because alcohol withdrawal can be fatal.
Well, essentially, they knew more about the transmission & fatality rates. The original models were based on covid being more similar to flu than it in fact is.
As data came in from other parts of the world, the information on the disease led to more accurate modelling.
All true, but the timing. The timeline mooted above shows that SOMEBODY already knew that before Boris took action on it. Several somebodies. It wasn't new news. Hence claims about the timing of his actions being based on science are untrue.
Indeed. There was nothing learned between March 12 and March 23 that was all that new. For example, here's Boris Johnson on March 12 admitting:
Some people compare it to seasonal flu. Alas, that is not right. Due to the lack of immunity this disease is more dangerous. It is going to spread further and I must level with you, I must level with the British public: many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.
Note that it took almost two weeks from this statement to the kind of lockdown now in place. This seems to be a corollary to something I mentioned on another thread, that when described in accurate and neutral language most people will not believe conservatives are proposing the things that they're actually proposing. In this case the proposal was that a deadly disease be allowed to run unchecked and kill off tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of British subjects. The corollary of this is that there are always others who will go even further and make up fraudulent post facto excuses about why "let them die and decrease the surplus population" was actually the reasonable decision at the time.
Herd imunity was never a policy.
Lock down was delayed because lockdown would not have been accepted by the public because they hadn't then seen thousands of deaths.
Even when Lock down is lifted the old and vulnerable will still have to stay isolated at home
Well, essentially, they knew more about the transmission & fatality rates. The original models were based on covid being more similar to flu than it in fact is.
As data came in from other parts of the world, the information on the disease led to more accurate modelling.
All true, but the timing. The timeline mooted above shows that SOMEBODY already knew that before Boris took action on it. Several somebodies. It wasn't new news. Hence claims about the timing of his actions being based on science are untrue.
Indeed. There was nothing learned between March 12 and March 23 that was all that new. For example, here's Boris Johnson on March 12 admitting:
Some people compare it to seasonal flu. Alas, that is not right. Due to the lack of immunity this disease is more dangerous. It is going to spread further and I must level with you, I must level with the British public: many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.
Note that it took almost two weeks from this statement to the kind of lockdown now in place. This seems to be a corollary to something I mentioned on another thread, that when described in accurate and neutral language most people will not believe conservatives are proposing the things that they're actually proposing. In this case the proposal was that a deadly disease be allowed to run unchecked and kill off tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of British subjects. The corollary of this is that there are always others who will go even further and make up fraudulent post facto excuses about why "let them die and decrease the surplus population" was actually the reasonable decision at the time.
Herd imunity was never a policy.
Lock down was delayed because lockdown would not have been accepted by the public because they hadn't then seen thousands of deaths.
Even when Lock down is lifted the old and vulnerable will still have to stay isolated at home
Bloody hell. The willingness to declare that we've always been at war with Eurasia is astounding.
I'm an ex British public servant and know all about political predetermination of presented evidence and agenda.
The predetermination of policy didn’t spring from a single source - and ran in multiple directions, ultimately the PM bears the greatest responsibility.
Well, essentially, they knew more about the transmission & fatality rates. The original models were based on covid being more similar to flu than it in fact is.
As data came in from other parts of the world, the information on the disease led to more accurate modelling.
All true, but the timing. The timeline mooted above shows that SOMEBODY already knew that before Boris took action on it. Several somebodies. It wasn't new news. Hence claims about the timing of his actions being based on science are untrue.
Indeed. There was nothing learned between March 12 and March 23 that was all that new. For example, here's Boris Johnson on March 12 admitting:
Some people compare it to seasonal flu. Alas, that is not right. Due to the lack of immunity this disease is more dangerous. It is going to spread further and I must level with you, I must level with the British public: many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.
Note that it took almost two weeks from this statement to the kind of lockdown now in place. This seems to be a corollary to something I mentioned on another thread, that when described in accurate and neutral language most people will not believe conservatives are proposing the things that they're actually proposing. In this case the proposal was that a deadly disease be allowed to run unchecked and kill off tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of British subjects. The corollary of this is that there are always others who will go even further and make up fraudulent post facto excuses about why "let them die and decrease the surplus population" was actually the reasonable decision at the time.
Lock down was delayed because lockdown would not have been accepted by the public because they hadn't then seen thousands of deaths.
At best a supposition by the behavioural science unit with little evidence and at worst cover for the the policy of keeping the economy above all else.
Well, essentially, they knew more about the transmission & fatality rates. The original models were based on covid being more similar to flu than it in fact is.
As data came in from other parts of the world, the information on the disease led to more accurate modelling.
All true, but the timing. The timeline mooted above shows that SOMEBODY already knew that before Boris took action on it. Several somebodies. It wasn't new news. Hence claims about the timing of his actions being based on science are untrue.
Indeed. There was nothing learned between March 12 and March 23 that was all that new. For example, here's Boris Johnson on March 12 admitting:
Some people compare it to seasonal flu. Alas, that is not right. Due to the lack of immunity this disease is more dangerous. It is going to spread further and I must level with you, I must level with the British public: many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.
Note that it took almost two weeks from this statement to the kind of lockdown now in place. This seems to be a corollary to something I mentioned on another thread, that when described in accurate and neutral language most people will not believe conservatives are proposing the things that they're actually proposing. In this case the proposal was that a deadly disease be allowed to run unchecked and kill off tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of British subjects. The corollary of this is that there are always others who will go even further and make up fraudulent post facto excuses about why "let them die and decrease the surplus population" was actually the reasonable decision at the time.
Lock down was delayed because lockdown would not have been accepted by the public because they hadn't then seen thousands of deaths.
At best a supposition by the behavioural science unit with little evidence and at worst cover for the the policy of keeping the economy above all else.
Lock down is still not properly accepted so how would it have worked when they were so few deaths ?
It seems clear to me that the UK didn't impose lockdown as soon as it could have done, not due to any public unwillingness to accept the idea, but because the prevailing government wisdom was that herd immunity was a better strategy. Only when it was realised just how many more deaths this might result in due to revised modelling did it do a U-turn, and it was a U-turn.
It should be clear from this thread that I'm no fan of bashing the government merely because of its political hue, but pretending that there was no U-turn in the UK does indeed look Orwellian to me.
Well, essentially, they knew more about the transmission & fatality rates. The original models were based on covid being more similar to flu than it in fact is.
As data came in from other parts of the world, the information on the disease led to more accurate modelling.
All true, but the timing. The timeline mooted above shows that SOMEBODY already knew that before Boris took action on it. Several somebodies. It wasn't new news. Hence claims about the timing of his actions being based on science are untrue.
Indeed. There was nothing learned between March 12 and March 23 that was all that new. For example, here's Boris Johnson on March 12 admitting:
Some people compare it to seasonal flu. Alas, that is not right. Due to the lack of immunity this disease is more dangerous. It is going to spread further and I must level with you, I must level with the British public: many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.
Note that it took almost two weeks from this statement to the kind of lockdown now in place. This seems to be a corollary to something I mentioned on another thread, that when described in accurate and neutral language most people will not believe conservatives are proposing the things that they're actually proposing. In this case the proposal was that a deadly disease be allowed to run unchecked and kill off tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of British subjects. The corollary of this is that there are always others who will go even further and make up fraudulent post facto excuses about why "let them die and decrease the surplus population" was actually the reasonable decision at the time.
Lock down was delayed because lockdown would not have been accepted by the public because they hadn't then seen thousands of deaths.
At best a supposition by the behavioural science unit with little evidence and at worst cover for the the policy of keeping the economy above all else.
Lock down is still not properly accepted so how would it have worked when they were so few deaths ?
Lockdown has largely been accepted and the people genuinely flouting the regulations are very much in the minority.
Yes, the buck stops with the PM. That's the way collective responsibility works.
And yes, the buck for weighing the best scientific and medical evidence and advising on it, stops with Vallance and Witty. Advising is always a secondary responsibility. But a significant one.
There are two possible explanations for Witty and Vallance throwing their weight behind the containment policy.
1. They trimmed their judgment to fit political considerations.
2. When weighing the range of scientific and medical advice they made the wrong summary conclusion. As Doc Tor put it, they backed the wrong horse.
Either way, they share some of the responsibility.
Ferguson argued that the Imperial College model forecasts of deaths moved rapidly from being worst case scenario to most likely outcome. Looking at the situation today, we might, if we are lucky, get out of this first spike of the epidemic with about 20,000 deaths. It depends how slow the decline from the peak turns out to be.
But it remains to be seen whether we will ultimately avoid a quarter of a million deaths. It seems as though there is division in the UK Cabinet over relaxing the present constraints. I'm not surprised. Deaths do result from collapsed economies. It's a pretty horrible balance to have to weigh.
It seems clear to me that the UK didn't impose lockdown as soon as it could have done, not due to any public unwillingness to accept the idea, but because the prevailing government wisdom was that herd immunity was a better strategy. Only when it was realised just how many more deaths this might result in due to revised modelling did it do a U-turn, and it was a U-turn.
It should be clear from this thread that I'm no fan of bashing the government merely because of its political hue, but pretending that there was no U-turn in the UK does indeed look Orwellian to me.
I thought that some epidemiologists opposed herd immunity, because it was usually linked with vaccines. The idea that you could achieve it without, ran into the buffers of the Imperial College predictions. I suppose blaming people now is pointless, except that you wonder what other cockups lurk.
They said they would follow the science; the scientifc advice changed and they changed their policy. The entire world is persuing a herd immunity policy (in the sense that they realise the pandemic won`t be over `till it happens) - that is what a vaccine is *for*. That is what anti-body testing - that we aspire to have - is *checking for*.
Whether people complie with lockdown for two weeks is one thing, whether they comply with it for 9 to 18 months is quite another. We have seen people struggle to cope, a dramatic rise in domestic abuse (and many vulnerable children are not taking up the school places kept open for them which means there is a probably an unseen increase in child abuse) - whilst public policy is running to keep up with the need to secure the food supply and enough money for people to live on.
These impacts of lockdown were, and remain, reasonable things to worry about.
We won`t know how many excess deaths we`ve ended up with (above expected yearly mortality) for some time to come - and we won`t know overall until the end of the pandemic. China has lifted lockdown but people are still dying there. There is an ongoing risk of a second or third peak..
All cause mortaality in the UK is usually somewhere between 10 and 14 thousand per week depending on the time of year and the virulence of the flu season.
The government gutted the NHS and didn`t retain the crisis stockpile they needed of PPE, ventillators or testing reagents - and that I do think they are responsable for, and the crap comms where they have obfusticated about what is giong on. But I don`t think that that they delayed lockdown because somehow they couldn`t be arsed.
What does seem to have been achieved, by hook or by crook, is that as yet we have not run out of critical care beds.
What does seem to have been achieved, by hook or by crook, is that as yet we have not run out of critical care beds.
And long may that continue to be so.
My worry at the other end of the world is that we are going into winter. I know that extra flu vaccinations have been ordered, but still worry about there being enough critical care beds.
I'm still boiling over Patel's non-apology. Do they think we're idiots and will accept the blaming nature of her "I'm sorry if" garbage, while health workers are dying?
I thought that some epidemiologists opposed herd immunity, because it was usually linked with vaccines.
I think I'd say "always" rather than "usually". Herd immunity without a vaccine does reduce the rate of disease incidence but has never eliminated a disease or even driven incidence rates down to very low levels - before the development of vaccines diseases like measles, smallpox, polio etc were always a cause of significant suffering even among populations which had developed a level of herd immunity, and were frequently carried into populations with no immunity with devastating results. The only proven way to develop a level of herd immunity sufficient to prevent widescale spread of a disease, without other measures to isolate people, is to vaccinate somewhere in excess of 90% of the population.
Comments
We have to be careful with the assertions here. We do not know if these are truly excess deaths yet. We will have to look at the data properly retrospectively.
Having said that, the numbers are big and almost certainly worse than comparable countries (other than the US) and yes, the media are giving the government essentially a free ride. That is so morally contemptible when we are talking about potentially thousands of extra deaths. But then apparently, Boris leave ICU was the GREATEST NEWS EVER so we know where the print media is coming from...
AFZ
Well, now.
Darlo - like many of the northern towns that have no longer have a reason to exist post-industry... No one goes there, and no one leaves. There are people who live in Sunderland who have never been to Newcastle. Young people, old people, regular people.
And that's why. Low transmission rates. The more cosmopolitan and/or wealthy, the more travel and connections people have.
How long before the tories start blaming "citizens of nowhere" and/or "rootless cosmopolitans" for the spread of the virus?
Did the scientific evidence change between when Boris was going with "herd immunity" and when he switched to quarantine?
As data came in from other parts of the world, the information on the disease led to more accurate modelling.
O.
ISWYM.
I live in a place with a very transient population - they come, and they go, at a bewildering rate - cosmopolitan, but not exactly wealthy...
This time round it was half term skiing breaks to Italy that really did the damage.
All true, but the timing. The timeline mooted above shows that SOMEBODY already knew that before Boris took action on it. Several somebodies. It wasn't new news. Hence claims about the timing of his actions being based on science are untrue.
Indeed. There was nothing learned between March 12 and March 23 that was all that new. For example, here's Boris Johnson on March 12 admitting:
Note that it took almost two weeks from this statement to the kind of lockdown now in place. This seems to be a corollary to something I mentioned on another thread, that when described in accurate and neutral language most people will not believe conservatives are proposing the things that they're actually proposing. In this case the proposal was that a deadly disease be allowed to run unchecked and kill off tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of British subjects. The corollary of this is that there are always others who will go even further and make up fraudulent post facto excuses about why "let them die and decrease the surplus population" was actually the reasonable decision at the time.
I'm pretty sure she meant to include quite a lot of people. Including Jews because, as they say, that train is never late.
Yes, especially nine months from now. (Sorry, I couldn't resist).
And, in truth that crop will be with around for up to 100+ years
Which does bring up the question of genetic memory. Genetic memory (psychology) ... It is based on the idea that common experiences of a species become incorporated into its genetic code, not by a Lamarckian process that encodes specific memories but by a much vaguer tendency to encode a readiness to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. (Wikipedia definition).
I know there is a study that suggests the effects of the Dutch Famine of 1944 can still be seen in the code of the Dutch generation of that time.
Last night Rachel Maddow (MSNBC-USA) talked with a physician who works in an Emergency Unit at a major hospital. He mentioned that often times, when there is no ventilator available, they will put the patient on a CPAP machine which will force air into the lungs.
CPAPs are machines that are used for sleep apnea. It helps keep the airways open so the person can continue to breathe. Myself, I use a BiPAP machine that does the same thing only with variable pressure so I can more easily breathe out. I swallow too much air using a CPAP.
Whatever will help keep people alive.
Is the POTUS head of a political party? I thought that was the British system, and not the American.
it's good that they have the option, but this is a devil's choice, because (I've been told) a CPAP aerosolizes the patient's breath--and virus. Which I rather doubt they have the means to contain, with even virus-proof masks so unobtainable.
I've researched news reports from the end of February onwards and it is quite clear that Chris Witty and Patrick Vallance were giving scientific advice to COBRA meetings from the start. Indeed it was Chris Witty who provided the rationale for the initial policy of containment, when it was first presented publicly.
There was a parallel story that Dominic Cummings was a proponent of the "it's flu, let them get it and if it kills off some old people, well ....." policy and also a report that he had changed his mind by March 12. Cummings' ideas would certainly have influenced Boris both before and after his change of mind.
It's hard to believe that the original policy of containment, which rapidly proved to be insufficient in the face of the mounting statistics and the prediction models , was not backed at the time by both the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser. I am no fan of Boris Johnson, but unlike the USA (the Trump-Fauci show), and on the basis of what I have read, it is reasonable to conclude that the scientific advice and political decisions were pretty closely aligned from the beginning of March onwards.
I think it may be reasonable to argue (as I think Neil Ferguson would) that there was a period early on when government policy did not take sufficient account of the dire predictions of the Imperial College model. But if blame is to be laid at feet then it seems to me it would be wrong to lay that all at the feet of the Prime Minister. The Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser should share in that.
I think what's more important bis what happens from here on in. Boris is waxing lyrical about the NHS saving his life. That should at least count for something in terms of subsequent actions. Yes, he was caught on the backfoot initially and yes, tragically, I think we are seeing the dreadful results of initial hesitation on the lock-down.
I'd heard of medics - friends of friends - predicting Imperial College scale figures before the change of plan. So, yes, he could have acted sooner but on fairness unlike Trump he hasn't been denying the science. Not that it's a competition.
People like Priti (No Pity) Patel are the ones who frighten me.
Again, why is it "hard to believe" that a politician might not follow the advice of his scientific advisors or that it's "reasonable to conclude" automatically that they did so? I don't think there's a fancy Latin name for the informal fallacy of "giving the benefit of the doubt to people who have repeated demonstrated that they don't deserve it", but there should be.
This kind of reflexive credulity and willingness to manufacture excuses post facto is a hindrance at the best of times. Right now it's downright dangerous.
Firstly what Crœsos said -- secondly if you read that Reuters piece it is fairly clear that one of the problems with expert advice to the government is that the menu of possible options is going to be politically predetermined.
If you start from the premise that you want to keep the country completely open for business, and don't have any plan to bulk up the NHS massively in a short space of time then the only realistic option is 'herd immunity' even if the scientists advise that it hasn't really been tried.
As I said in the other place, one of the points of note in the UK is that a government is rarely if ever challenged in the middle of a crisis. There might be an inquiry, which will conclude that no one was to blame and it was a systemic failure.
There'll be a book or film long after all the guilty parties have moved on - the writer/director will be written up in the arts pages as 'bold' and might win an award.
Chris Witty and Patrick Vallance stood beside the Prime Minister as chief representatives of the medical and scientific communities. They did not only support the policy of containment, they presented and expanded the rationale for the policy.
If they had reservations about the soundness of that policy at the time, they had options which they did not exercise. I am reporting on their behaviour. By all means call them culpable. By all means point to the minimising of the risks revealed by the Imperial College model. But do not make this purely an overriding of scientific and medical opinion in favour of political and economic expediencies. The evidence of the behaviour of Witty and Vallance does not support your hypothesis.
I think they have some explaining to do. But I'm not about to find them guilty of trimming their advice to suit political considerations. None of us knows that was going on. Feel free to have suspicions.
Prime Minister, schminister. What you said was:
You said nothing about the prime minister. I'm happy to drop Boris and go back to your original claim, which you now admit was wrong.
Don't know if this is relevant, but in France there's been a concern that people locked down who don't normally cook will get good old-fashioned food poisoning because of improper preparation.
I'm told that the reason off-licences are considered essential businesses in the UK is because alcohol withdrawal can be fatal.
Herd imunity was never a policy.
Lock down was delayed because lockdown would not have been accepted by the public because they hadn't then seen thousands of deaths.
Even when Lock down is lifted the old and vulnerable will still have to stay isolated at home
Bloody hell. The willingness to declare that we've always been at war with Eurasia is astounding.
The predetermination of policy didn’t spring from a single source - and ran in multiple directions, ultimately the PM bears the greatest responsibility.
But then most New Zealanders had seen what was happening overseas and trusted her message,
We have the receipts.
At best a supposition by the behavioural science unit with little evidence and at worst cover for the the policy of keeping the economy above all else.
Lock down is still not properly accepted so how would it have worked when they were so few deaths ?
It should be clear from this thread that I'm no fan of bashing the government merely because of its political hue, but pretending that there was no U-turn in the UK does indeed look Orwellian to me.
Lockdown has largely been accepted and the people genuinely flouting the regulations are very much in the minority.
Yes, the buck stops with the PM. That's the way collective responsibility works.
And yes, the buck for weighing the best scientific and medical evidence and advising on it, stops with Vallance and Witty. Advising is always a secondary responsibility. But a significant one.
There are two possible explanations for Witty and Vallance throwing their weight behind the containment policy.
1. They trimmed their judgment to fit political considerations.
2. When weighing the range of scientific and medical advice they made the wrong summary conclusion. As Doc Tor put it, they backed the wrong horse.
Either way, they share some of the responsibility.
Ferguson argued that the Imperial College model forecasts of deaths moved rapidly from being worst case scenario to most likely outcome. Looking at the situation today, we might, if we are lucky, get out of this first spike of the epidemic with about 20,000 deaths. It depends how slow the decline from the peak turns out to be.
But it remains to be seen whether we will ultimately avoid a quarter of a million deaths. It seems as though there is division in the UK Cabinet over relaxing the present constraints. I'm not surprised. Deaths do result from collapsed economies. It's a pretty horrible balance to have to weigh.
Especially when they know there are people who will attack them for it whichever decision they make.
The same people, in some cases.
I thought that some epidemiologists opposed herd immunity, because it was usually linked with vaccines. The idea that you could achieve it without, ran into the buffers of the Imperial College predictions. I suppose blaming people now is pointless, except that you wonder what other cockups lurk.
They said they would follow the science; the scientifc advice changed and they changed their policy. The entire world is persuing a herd immunity policy (in the sense that they realise the pandemic won`t be over `till it happens) - that is what a vaccine is *for*. That is what anti-body testing - that we aspire to have - is *checking for*.
Whether people complie with lockdown for two weeks is one thing, whether they comply with it for 9 to 18 months is quite another. We have seen people struggle to cope, a dramatic rise in domestic abuse (and many vulnerable children are not taking up the school places kept open for them which means there is a probably an unseen increase in child abuse) - whilst public policy is running to keep up with the need to secure the food supply and enough money for people to live on.
These impacts of lockdown were, and remain, reasonable things to worry about.
We won`t know how many excess deaths we`ve ended up with (above expected yearly mortality) for some time to come - and we won`t know overall until the end of the pandemic. China has lifted lockdown but people are still dying there. There is an ongoing risk of a second or third peak..
All cause mortaality in the UK is usually somewhere between 10 and 14 thousand per week depending on the time of year and the virulence of the flu season.
The government gutted the NHS and didn`t retain the crisis stockpile they needed of PPE, ventillators or testing reagents - and that I do think they are responsable for, and the crap comms where they have obfusticated about what is giong on. But I don`t think that that they delayed lockdown because somehow they couldn`t be arsed.
What does seem to have been achieved, by hook or by crook, is that as yet we have not run out of critical care beds.
And long may that continue to be so.
My worry at the other end of the world is that we are going into winter. I know that extra flu vaccinations have been ordered, but still worry about there being enough critical care beds.