Emergency legislation - information and commentary

[anonymous-user]

When will it ever NOT be too soon? It appears that, whatever the figures say, there are those who will dutifully wheel the goalposts a bit further along and say "we must not act too soon".

Anyway, there is SAGE above with what might be a pessimistic model (SAGE is not known for being super-optimistic) saying that something over 18,000 people may die of Covid over the next fourteenth months. NHS in ruins? It appears not. But still: existential threat, yeah?

[anonymous-user]

UCL is a university that very wickedly does the wrong sort of modelling, and does not adhere to that pleasantly vague and malleable form of science that the Government is so keen on.

Here is the latest wicked wrongness from UCL -

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/britain-herd-im...

[Neil1300r]

Graveworm said:

If everyone is vaccinated but insufficient to achieve herd immunity, we get 85 percent fewer deaths. Because most of the vulnerable are vaccinated even at current levels, once they take effect, it could be as high as 75 percent already. The deaths we saw last year and are seeing, are with measures and lockdown so, mathematically, with no restrictions at all and no more vaccinations, there is nothing preventing significant hospitalisations and deaths. Chile with higher levels of vaccinations to us has just had to lockdown again as it opened up too soon.

As of yesterday Chile had vaccinated 37% of the population with at least one vaccine. Which is lower than the UK. Chile got it wrong by opening before they had vaccinated all the at risks groups. A better comparison would be Israel, who have vaccinated a larger percentage of their population than the UK, have eased restrictions and not seeing Covid deaths rising. (Figures and analysis from The Times)

[Brave Fart]

Neil1300r said:

As of yesterday Chile had vaccinated 37% of the population with at least one vaccine. Which is lower than the UK. Chile got it wrong by opening before they had vaccinated all the at risks groups. A better comparison would be Israel, who have vaccinated a larger percentage of their population than the UK, have eased restrictions and not seeing Covid deaths rising. (Figures and analysis from The Times)

Also worth noting that Chile has been using the Sinovac vaccine as well as Pfizer. Israel? Pfizer only, I think. You've also got the fact that Chile is entering its autumn months, although the climate in Chile is incredibly varied. Then there's, say, Sweden, whose 7 day death average is currently 8 per day, even though they have vaccinated only 12% of their population.
Cherry picking a country and concluding "OMG we must continue with lockdown, because of XYZ country" may be unhelpful. Pick Israel, as you say, instead of Chile and you get a different perspective, it seems.

[NickCQ]

Breadvan72 said:

Anyway, there is SAGE above with what might be a pessimistic model (SAGE is not known for being super-optimistic) saying that something over 18,000 people may die of Covid over the next fourteenth months. NHS in ruins? It appears not. But still: existential threat, yeah?

It's a bit of a trolley problem. I do not envy the prime minister that has to pull the lever to allow 18k excess deaths, however strong the economic justification is. Lockdown is the easy option for your conscience.

[carinaman]

It's an abundance of Precautionary Principle B0ll0cks.

[Elysium]

NickCQ said:

Breadvan72 said:

Anyway, there is SAGE above with what might be a pessimistic model (SAGE is not known for being super-optimistic) saying that something over 18,000 people may die of Covid over the next fourteenth months. NHS in ruins? It appears not. But still: existential threat, yeah?

It's a bit of a trolley problem. I do not envy the prime minister that has to pull the lever to allow 18k excess deaths, however strong the economic justification is. Lockdown is the easy option for your conscience.

It is a trolley problem for a weak, self indulgent age.

The possibility of 18k further COVID deaths is real, but they will not necessarily be excess deaths. In fact we are currently at a 10 year minimum for deaths based on ONS data

Society has always faced difficult choices and the need to manage scarce resources.

We are spending £120k on testing for each positive case we find in schools. That is a ridiculous over allocation of funds compared to the usual mathematics that determines what treatments are available on the NHS and to whom they will be offered.

We are spending 10 x perhaps even 100 x more to prevent COVID deaths than we have ever spent in the fight against any illness. That is unsustainable.

The problem is our collective delusion that further deaths from COVID are actually preventable.

[NickCQ]

Breadvan72 said:

UCL

I hadn't looked at the UCL modelling before but it is interesting and does tell a substantially different story.
Based on the current unlocking trajectory they predict absolutely no case resurgence at all:

https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/covid-19/forecas...

The key thing to understand in comparing these two projections is the following (edited for brevity + added emphasis):

UCL said:

Our predictions are the most likely scenarios given our responses to date. This complements and contrasts with SAGE's projections of reasonable worst-case scenarios that underwrite applications of the precautionary principle. Our predictions of mitigated responses are more optimistic than SAGE's worst-case projections of unmitigated responses.

In the face of scientific uncertainty should you plan for the central / "best estimate" case, a downside case or the reasonable worst case?

[NickCQ]

Elysium said:

The possibility of 18k further COVID deaths is real, but they will not necessarily be excess deaths. In fact we are currently at a 10 year minimum for deaths based on ONS data.

Agree on the second point but I am not sure I agree on the first point. Last year lots of COVID deaths were basically moribund old / vulnerable people. Now they are all jabbed doesn't it follow that a higher % of COVID deaths this time round would be true excess deaths?

[RSTurboPaul]

Brave Fart said:

Neil1300r said:

As of yesterday Chile had vaccinated 37% of the population with at least one vaccine. Which is lower than the UK. Chile got it wrong by opening before they had vaccinated all the at risks groups. A better comparison would be Israel, who have vaccinated a larger percentage of their population than the UK, have eased restrictions and not seeing Covid deaths rising. (Figures and analysis from The Times)

Also worth noting that Chile has been using the Sinovac vaccine as well as Pfizer. Israel? Pfizer only, I think. You've also got the fact that Chile is entering its autumn months, although the climate in Chile is incredibly varied. Then there's, say, Sweden, whose 7 day death average is currently 8 per day, even though they have vaccinated only 12% of their population.
Cherry picking a country and concluding "OMG we must continue with lockdown, because of XYZ country" may be unhelpful. Pick Israel, as you say, instead of Chile and you get a different perspective, it seems.

As a side note - I'm not sure we can really say Israel have 'eased restrictions' in the broadest sense, given they are now practicing medical segregation via a 'GreenPass' system that excludes the non-vaccinated from everyday life, or even working if they are in schools (with functionally immune children), but they have lifted lockdown to a degree and are permitting some smaller-scale activities for those taking the vaccination (with masks and social distancing still...).

[Durzel]

What does Johnson or indeed the Govt have to gain from this carrying on longer than is necessary? This always seems to be the elephant in the room that everyone, including on this thread, dances around without ever actually addressing.

There is some merit, I think, in the suggestion that he is following the prevailing mood, and that the media by and large is doing likewise, so ending in a feedback loop of paralysis and an abundance of caution. I can't see what the play is beyond that, however. To read some of the anti-lockdown screeds Johnson is carrying out some kind of Machiavellian plot, which is attributing a level of competency far beyond his grasp.

Other than the stocks of Amazon, Zoom, etc the general depression of all of the industries in the country can hardly be considered to be a boon for the Government. There is a reasonable arguably growing proportion of the general public who will at this point be blaming him/the Government for not opening things up quicker. Even the people that are broadly "for" the lockdown policy, and attribute that to strong Conservative Party leadership don't have much to be thankful for.

I personally think that people - possibly bored or running out of things to watch on Netflix - actively want to see conspiracy where the simplest explanations suffice. The feedback loop argument is probably the closest thing to reality, i.e. that no one really wants to suggest a course of action that would ultimately directly result in more COVID infections and more COVID-attributed deaths, with the nebulous effects on long term mental health and causal deaths taking a back seat.

It is basically Rumsfeld's "there are known unknowns, and unknown unknowns" playing out.

[anonymous-user]

I do not see dark conspiracies, and think that incompetence, cowardice, and the feedback loop are big factors. I am, however, worried, by the ease with which liberties are suspended without any meaningful debate and don't think that people such as Johnson and Patel are trustworthy in any way.

I add that the prevalence of just one narrative, and one view of the numbers, and the depiction of other views as no more than the rantings of conspiracy theorists, is not a good thing for a civil society. There are of course some rantings by conspiracy theorists, but those can safely be ignored. It is a pity that sensible opposing viewpoints are brushed aside by Government and media alike.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 8th April 13:13

[NickCQ]

Breadvan72 said:

It is a pity that sensible opposing viewpoints are brushed aside by Government and media alike.

Hancock didn't help himself this morning trying to sidestep the UCL "herd immunity" findings. But then again I don't think the UCL researchers went as far as recommending a faster unlocking?

[gareth_r]

Breadvan72 said:

I do not see dark conspiracies, and think that incompetence, cowardice, and the feedback loop are big factors. I am, however, worried, by the ease with which liberties are suspended without any meaningful debate and don't think that people such as Johnson and Patel are trustworthy in any way.

I add that the prevalence of just one narrative, and one view of the numbers, and the depiction of other views as no more than the rantings of conspiracy theorists, is not a good thing for a civil society. There are of course some rantings by conspiracy theorists, but those can safely be ignored. It is a pity that sensible opposing viewpoints are brushed aside by Government and media alike.

A good example in the Guardian. A year ago they wouldn't have believed the Conservatives' opinion on the time of day.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/08/among...

[anonymous-user]

Yup, and here on PH and everywhere you see the same shrill monotone: any criticism of the Government handling of C19 means you are a conspiracy wingnut just like the loonies in that Guardian article. Do not question, do not debate, just obey, bang your pots, and so on.

SAGE seems to have been captured by worst cases viewpoints, and seems also obsessed by prediction rather than by observation of what actually happens. So UCL and others who suggest what might be more real world views are whistling in the wind.

[NickCQ]

Breadvan72 said:

Yup, and here on PH and everywhere you see the same shrill monotone: any criticism of the Government handling of C19 means you are a conspiracy wingnut just like the loonies in that Guardian article. Do not question, do not debate, just obey, bang your pots, and so on.

As someone you have accused of both "living in fear" and being a "hate-filled authoritarian" I find this comment a little amusing!

[deebs]

gareth_r said:

Breadvan72 said:

I do not see dark conspiracies, and think that incompetence, cowardice, and the feedback loop are big factors. I am, however, worried, by the ease with which liberties are suspended without any meaningful debate and don't think that people such as Johnson and Patel are trustworthy in any way.

I add that the prevalence of just one narrative, and one view of the numbers, and the depiction of other views as no more than the rantings of conspiracy theorists, is not a good thing for a civil society. There are of course some rantings by conspiracy theorists, but those can safely be ignored. It is a pity that sensible opposing viewpoints are brushed aside by Government and media alike.

A good example in the Guardian. A year ago they wouldn't have believed the Conservatives' opinion on the time of day.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/08/among...

That article is interesting in many ways. The subheading is:

the guardian said:

Who are the people who have come to follow wild conspiracy theories about Covid-19?".

And yet we are immediately introduced to the story of Anna, who is in pain having had a major operation cancelled, isn't working as her business has been closed, and is afraid of her risk of COVID:

the guardian said:

Anna and her partner researched the virus online. On Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, they came across theories about the origins of coronavirus that the mainstream media weren’t talking about – that it was engineered in a lab in China, say, or that it had been artificially spliced with HIV. Some of it seemed implausible to Anna, but it was enough to convince her that the media wasn’t telling the full story. “Loads of people were saying ‘even if you die from a heart attack, they’ll put it down as a Covid death’. I was looking into that, and how many people who died had pre-existing health conditions,” she said. “It was to make me feel better, so I wouldn’t be as scared.”

She read dense, seemingly scientific material which claimed that PCR testing – the throat and nasal swabs that are considered the gold standard of Covid tests – leads to enormous numbers of false positives. She read that the World Health Organization had said that Britain is testing at too high a sensitivity. She read about the cost of lockdowns, and Sweden’s more permissive approach. She read about the death rate; 1% didn’t sound that high at all. Looked at another way, 99% survived. By the end of the first lockdown, Anna was no longer afraid. She was angry. “I’d been sat in my house for four months, in absolute agony, no mental health support, no financial support, and it did an absolute number on me,” she said.

I might sum up the above as someone trying to make sense of what is being reported by looking at many and varied sources. It goes on to talk about the extremes, the David Ike's 5Gs, the new world order et al. But here's another revealing paragraph:

the guardian said:

Covid scepticism is not limited to a single demographic. Many Facebook accounts are run by suburban mums, who post memes about children being traumatised by masks. Other Covid sceptics, particularly some regulars at street protests, are members of far right and football hooligan groups. Some are fans of David Icke, the conspiracist’s conspiracist, who believes that coronavirus is spread by 5G. Still others came to the movement via alternative health and new age communities, jumping into Telegram conversations about the Illuminati to talk about homeopathy and vibrations. Some are simply, like Anna, small business owners who have suffered major personal fallout over the past year. All share a conviction that they are seeing something that the mainstream is blind to.

The conflation of a small business owner's ruined livelihood or a facebook group run by "suburban mums" concerned about children being required to wear masks and 5G, the Illuminati and the far right hooligan groups into a collective is startling, it really is. It is to idly dismiss without review the real concerns of 'ordinary' people by simply wishing them away into a group with more in common with flat earthers, simply for asking to see and understand the real evidence and/or raw data that drives the governments response.

Here the article wishes to bring public figures who support a transparent and evidence based approach into [further?] disrepute, again by quietly joining the dots between vocal journalists/MPs who continue to challenge the government's position with "people posting [tweets] about [....] using vaccines to implant microchips".

the guardian said:

On lively Facebook groups, people swap stories about hardship under lockdown, and approvingly share screenshots of tweets by mainstream lockdown sceptics such as Toby Young and Allison Pearson. One particularly popular figure is the backbench Tory MP Charles Walker, who voted against the second and third lockdowns and recently staged a protest against ongoing Covid restrictions in which he walked around London holding a pint of milk. “Charles Walker, one of the very few good ones”, wrote one admirer on Telegram.

Alongside this, there is more extreme content – people posting about the government using vaccines to implant microchips in your brain or about the New World Order, a longstanding conspiracy theory that a shadowy elite is secretly plotting to bring about a worldwide totalitarian government.

It's much easier for people to be put into neat little boxes - for or against, a lockdown lover or anti vaccer. The reality is completely different, complex, nuanced. You can't bring people around to "your" way of thinking by simply shouting at them to trust the authorities or belitling their genuine concerns by branding them to be part of a [diverse] group of nutters.

I sensed in some ways the article was trying to show the motivations and beliefs of those who are concerned are wide ranging, but all I'm left with in answer to the question in the sub heading - "Who are the people who have come to follow wild conspiracy theories about Covid-19?" - is , 'anyone who questions the government or SAGE'.

Sad times

[Durzel]

Everything has to be polarised nowadays, and people - even the ones who claim to be enlightened - can't help but pigeonhole people with contrarian views to their own. Nuance is an antiquated concept, you're either right or you're wrong.

[Elysium]

NickCQ said:

Elysium said:

The possibility of 18k further COVID deaths is real, but they will not necessarily be excess deaths. In fact we are currently at a 10 year minimum for deaths based on ONS data.

Agree on the second point but I am not sure I agree on the first point. Last year lots of COVID deaths were basically moribund old / vulnerable people. Now they are all jabbed doesn't it follow that a higher % of COVID deaths this time round would be true excess deaths?

Its terminology.

Excess deaths are additional deaths in a given period over and above the 5 year average. That does not mean the death toll is unusual as some years must always be higher than the average. An unusual weekly death toll would be one where deaths are 2 standard deviations above the 5 year average.

All cause deaths in England and Wales have been below the 5 year average since wk ending 12th March. So there are currently no excess deaths.

[NickCQ]

Elysium said:

Excess deaths are additional deaths in a given period over and above the 5 year average. That does not mean the death toll is unusual as some years must always be higher than the average. An unusual weekly death toll would be one where deaths are 2 standard deviations above the 5 year average.

Ah, I get what you are saying.

I was being loose with the terminology and talking about the difference in deaths between policy option A (unlocking) versus policy option B (continued lockdown), i.e. the "excess deaths of one policy versus another". When SAGE talk about 18k COVID deaths from unlocking, I suspect that's also what they mean, i.e. 18k net deaths that would otherwise have occurred beyond mid next year (perhaps not very far beyond, I don't know).