The new "rule of six" -- and the absence of an SI
Discussion
One of the annoying things about being a sceptic about the lockdown is that you get falsely associated with raving nutters such as Piers Corbyn and with various far right wing fantasists and conspiracy loons. Nobody can fairly accuse Sumption of being one of those types.
On the science side, I have seen some powerful criticism directed at the fact that SAGE relies too heavily on mathematical modelling and has not necessarily analysed how viruses behave in the real world. But now almost every Government and almost every opposition in almost every developed country is too dug in to the lockdown app[roach. None can now step forward and say "we acted with the best intent but we panicked and got this all wrong, and have trashed the economy and civil liberties on the basis of bad science".
Of relatively little note in the news is the scandalous ill treatment of students, who are being treated like prisoners. My wife is an academic, and most of her working time is now taken up by by being forced by her managers (who never care anything about academic endeavour - all universities having been taken over by commercial managerial systems) to implement absurdly over protective measures. My nephew is an undergraduate, whose college and university are treating him and his fellow students like criminals or children.
On the science side, I have seen some powerful criticism directed at the fact that SAGE relies too heavily on mathematical modelling and has not necessarily analysed how viruses behave in the real world. But now almost every Government and almost every opposition in almost every developed country is too dug in to the lockdown app[roach. None can now step forward and say "we acted with the best intent but we panicked and got this all wrong, and have trashed the economy and civil liberties on the basis of bad science".
Of relatively little note in the news is the scandalous ill treatment of students, who are being treated like prisoners. My wife is an academic, and most of her working time is now taken up by by being forced by her managers (who never care anything about academic endeavour - all universities having been taken over by commercial managerial systems) to implement absurdly over protective measures. My nephew is an undergraduate, whose college and university are treating him and his fellow students like criminals or children.
The BBC today carries another analysis from Imperial College (the same Imperial College that wrongly predicted that Mad Cow Disease would kills thousands). The BBC report does the usual BBC thing of stoking up the fear, but slips in low down and low key an observation by an academic at UEA that the death rate is now "substantially lower" than it was in spring. This point seems to me to be important and worthy of more focus. We cannot avoid death, as we all die, but of course a responsible society strives to reduce avoidable deaths. Swedish sceptic Dr Rushworth asks whether C19 is a disease of high lethality:
https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/10/24/how-dead...
I have never doubted that the disease is a serious one, but my support for the measures adopted by most Governments has been steadily eroding.
I would be surprised if the UK does not soon return to a lockdown similar to that imposed in the spring. The Government appears simply not to be listening to the arguments about Parliamentary democracy and about civil liberties, or to the body of reasonable scientific opinion that suggests that lock down measures are not viable answers to a disease that may never go away and which may never been curable or vaccinated. My fear is that we may see more authoritarian policing rather than less. The public have been educated to clamour for removal of freedom, and Governments and police forces are feeling empowered, and can add "we told you so" as they wag their fingers at a population treated as naughty children. Look at Wales, where authoritarianism has been ramped up unchallenged in recent weeks, and levels of control have exceeded anything seen in the spring.
https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/10/24/how-dead...
I have never doubted that the disease is a serious one, but my support for the measures adopted by most Governments has been steadily eroding.
I would be surprised if the UK does not soon return to a lockdown similar to that imposed in the spring. The Government appears simply not to be listening to the arguments about Parliamentary democracy and about civil liberties, or to the body of reasonable scientific opinion that suggests that lock down measures are not viable answers to a disease that may never go away and which may never been curable or vaccinated. My fear is that we may see more authoritarian policing rather than less. The public have been educated to clamour for removal of freedom, and Governments and police forces are feeling empowered, and can add "we told you so" as they wag their fingers at a population treated as naughty children. Look at Wales, where authoritarianism has been ramped up unchallenged in recent weeks, and levels of control have exceeded anything seen in the spring.
Breadvan72 said:
One of the annoying things about being a sceptic about the lockdown is that you get falsely associated with raving nutters such as Piers Corbyn and with various far right wing fantasists and conspiracy loons. Nobody can fairly accuse Sumption of being one of those types.
Piers Corbyn mentioned from 36 minutes in:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0&fe...
Sumption mentions how the police didn't conduct themselves the same way while dealing with Black Lives Matter or Extinction Rebellion protests.
Plod are now the stooges of Johnson and Hancock?
I would not go that far, but I think that too many police officers have authoritarian instincts.
The pandemic has shown us that many people love rules. They love obeying rules*, enforcing rules, denouncing others for breaches of rules, and so on. For many centuries, the British had a reputation of being an unruly people who loved liberty, but they appear to have changed in this regard.
Reverting to the academic context, the university where my wife teaches and the university where my nephew studies have each Gold-plated the Government's rules, adding layers of extra rules of their own. The Devolved Governments have gone into overdrive on rules. Local authorities and police forces have tried to do likewise. At a fairly trivial level, even the members' club that I used to go to has decided to hasten its possible demise by Gold-plating the rules so as to make going to the Club almost impossible.
Few people seem to be asking "What the Hell is all this for?". They just trot out the fear mantras. Critical thinking seems to have gone into the bin.
* Often the "rules" do not in fact exist. The cloud of vague "guidance", "advice", and "recommendations" is a besetting problem here.
The pandemic has shown us that many people love rules. They love obeying rules*, enforcing rules, denouncing others for breaches of rules, and so on. For many centuries, the British had a reputation of being an unruly people who loved liberty, but they appear to have changed in this regard.
Reverting to the academic context, the university where my wife teaches and the university where my nephew studies have each Gold-plated the Government's rules, adding layers of extra rules of their own. The Devolved Governments have gone into overdrive on rules. Local authorities and police forces have tried to do likewise. At a fairly trivial level, even the members' club that I used to go to has decided to hasten its possible demise by Gold-plating the rules so as to make going to the Club almost impossible.
Few people seem to be asking "What the Hell is all this for?". They just trot out the fear mantras. Critical thinking seems to have gone into the bin.
* Often the "rules" do not in fact exist. The cloud of vague "guidance", "advice", and "recommendations" is a besetting problem here.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 29th October 05:39
The politics of fear are powerful and easily abused. People are easily made fearful by threats to health. Then it's easy to carry moral authority if you purport to be acting in its defence.
The worldwide reaction to Covid has become almost cult like and the earth is going to remain flat until either significant number of states admit the error or the negative symptoms of the attempted suppression so great the people cease to accept it.
FWIW, the solution seems achingly straightforward now; move heaven and earth to provide bed capacity and let the virus burn itself out or at least run out of 'stock'.
The worldwide reaction to Covid has become almost cult like and the earth is going to remain flat until either significant number of states admit the error or the negative symptoms of the attempted suppression so great the people cease to accept it.
FWIW, the solution seems achingly straightforward now; move heaven and earth to provide bed capacity and let the virus burn itself out or at least run out of 'stock'.
Radio 4 News leads with "Infections increasing OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
But says NOTHING about death rates.
On one view, lots of infections but not so many deaths might be a good ish thing, as it possibly moves us further towards building up resistance, if not immunity, within the population. But the BBC maintains the line of fear. Its once excellent journalism has become quite irresponsible in many respects over the last decade or so.
But says NOTHING about death rates.
On one view, lots of infections but not so many deaths might be a good ish thing, as it possibly moves us further towards building up resistance, if not immunity, within the population. But the BBC maintains the line of fear. Its once excellent journalism has become quite irresponsible in many respects over the last decade or so.
I know your response will be to sneer and mock, as you don’t like challenge, as evidenced on other threads, but I’ll make a couple of points to the last few comments.
Firstly, this thread is supposedly about the legal arguments, but as I’ve pointed out previously it drifts into medical discussions all too willingly and acts as if the two are interlinked. They aren’t. You can disagree with the legal response without disagreeing with the medical arguments.
Secondly, how does this virus “run out of stock”? There has been quite a bit of coverage over recent days that antibodies levels reduce over time, thus reducing any potential immunity
Third (to play to the medical part of the discussion) death isn’t the only outcome of Covid. Many people who have survived are now facing significant medium / longer health term issues and these are a bigger financial burden on society. Harsh as it sounds it’s better for the economy if people die. Viruses are pretty simple things in some ways. They infect and they live, but if they are too powerful they kill the host and themselves. This leads to them naturally mutating into a softer version that infects, but doesn’t kill, a survival of the weakest for the virus. As is stands we clearly can’t stop the spread, but trying to slow it, minimise the impact and delay, delay, delay to create time for a vaccine, or a cure, or something has to make sense.
All the arguing about infringements on liberties is really just arguing for the sake of it. Would you have been as opposed to restrictions placed on people during other national crises. You love to reference the Stasi, so I’ll go extreme too. Would you have kicked off about the relocation of children out of London during WWII? What about black out restrictions? Outlawing Mosley? It’s easy to dismiss these as “what ifs”, but on that basis, your whole argument is flawed as it’s hypothetical and bemoaning a future that hasn’t happened.
Firstly, this thread is supposedly about the legal arguments, but as I’ve pointed out previously it drifts into medical discussions all too willingly and acts as if the two are interlinked. They aren’t. You can disagree with the legal response without disagreeing with the medical arguments.
Secondly, how does this virus “run out of stock”? There has been quite a bit of coverage over recent days that antibodies levels reduce over time, thus reducing any potential immunity
Third (to play to the medical part of the discussion) death isn’t the only outcome of Covid. Many people who have survived are now facing significant medium / longer health term issues and these are a bigger financial burden on society. Harsh as it sounds it’s better for the economy if people die. Viruses are pretty simple things in some ways. They infect and they live, but if they are too powerful they kill the host and themselves. This leads to them naturally mutating into a softer version that infects, but doesn’t kill, a survival of the weakest for the virus. As is stands we clearly can’t stop the spread, but trying to slow it, minimise the impact and delay, delay, delay to create time for a vaccine, or a cure, or something has to make sense.
All the arguing about infringements on liberties is really just arguing for the sake of it. Would you have been as opposed to restrictions placed on people during other national crises. You love to reference the Stasi, so I’ll go extreme too. Would you have kicked off about the relocation of children out of London during WWII? What about black out restrictions? Outlawing Mosley? It’s easy to dismiss these as “what ifs”, but on that basis, your whole argument is flawed as it’s hypothetical and bemoaning a future that hasn’t happened.
unident said:
..
All the arguing about infringements on liberties is really just arguing for the sake of it. Would you have been as opposed to restrictions placed on people during other national crises. You love to reference the Stasi, so I’ll go extreme too. Would you have kicked off about the relocation of children out of London during WWII? What about black out restrictions? Outlawing Mosley? It’s easy to dismiss these as “what ifs”, but on that basis, your whole argument is flawed as it’s hypothetical and bemoaning a future that hasn’t happened.
As always, you show your deep ignorance and your triviality of mind. Restrictions in WW2 came nowhere near the restrictions imposed this year. Your comment that arguments about civil liberties are just arguments for their own sake would be remarkable if we did not already know that you are a kneejerk authoritarian and/or habitual troll who simply repeats the same childish jibes on every thread that you post in. Nobody takes you seriously, because you never say anything serious. Back on the ignore list you go, as these days we must ration the troll food.All the arguing about infringements on liberties is really just arguing for the sake of it. Would you have been as opposed to restrictions placed on people during other national crises. You love to reference the Stasi, so I’ll go extreme too. Would you have kicked off about the relocation of children out of London during WWII? What about black out restrictions? Outlawing Mosley? It’s easy to dismiss these as “what ifs”, but on that basis, your whole argument is flawed as it’s hypothetical and bemoaning a future that hasn’t happened.
unident said:
I know your response will be to sneer and mock, as you don’t like challenge, as evidenced on other threads, but I’ll make a couple of points to the last few comments.
Firstly, this thread is supposedly about the legal arguments, but as I’ve pointed out previously it drifts into medical discussions all too willingly and acts as if the two are interlinked. They aren’t. You can disagree with the legal response without disagreeing with the medical arguments.
Secondly, how does this virus “run out of stock”? There has been quite a bit of coverage over recent days that antibodies levels reduce over time, thus reducing any potential immunity
Third (to play to the medical part of the discussion) death isn’t the only outcome of Covid. Many people who have survived are now facing significant medium / longer health term issues and these are a bigger financial burden on society. Harsh as it sounds it’s better for the economy if people die. Viruses are pretty simple things in some ways. They infect and they live, but if they are too powerful they kill the host and themselves. This leads to them naturally mutating into a softer version that infects, but doesn’t kill, a survival of the weakest for the virus. As is stands we clearly can’t stop the spread, but trying to slow it, minimise the impact and delay, delay, delay to create time for a vaccine, or a cure, or something has to make sense.
All the arguing about infringements on liberties is really just arguing for the sake of it. Would you have been as opposed to restrictions placed on people during other national crises. You love to reference the Stasi, so I’ll go extreme too. Would you have kicked off about the relocation of children out of London during WWII? What about black out restrictions? Outlawing Mosley? It’s easy to dismiss these as “what ifs”, but on that basis, your whole argument is flawed as it’s hypothetical and bemoaning a future that hasn’t happened.
I've always got to laugh when people say stuff like 'There has been quite a bit of coverage over recent days that antibodies levels reduce over time, thus reducing any potential immunity' and then a few sentences on start talking about vaccines. The two views are incompatible, it just doesn't make sense.Firstly, this thread is supposedly about the legal arguments, but as I’ve pointed out previously it drifts into medical discussions all too willingly and acts as if the two are interlinked. They aren’t. You can disagree with the legal response without disagreeing with the medical arguments.
Secondly, how does this virus “run out of stock”? There has been quite a bit of coverage over recent days that antibodies levels reduce over time, thus reducing any potential immunity
Third (to play to the medical part of the discussion) death isn’t the only outcome of Covid. Many people who have survived are now facing significant medium / longer health term issues and these are a bigger financial burden on society. Harsh as it sounds it’s better for the economy if people die. Viruses are pretty simple things in some ways. They infect and they live, but if they are too powerful they kill the host and themselves. This leads to them naturally mutating into a softer version that infects, but doesn’t kill, a survival of the weakest for the virus. As is stands we clearly can’t stop the spread, but trying to slow it, minimise the impact and delay, delay, delay to create time for a vaccine, or a cure, or something has to make sense.
All the arguing about infringements on liberties is really just arguing for the sake of it. Would you have been as opposed to restrictions placed on people during other national crises. You love to reference the Stasi, so I’ll go extreme too. Would you have kicked off about the relocation of children out of London during WWII? What about black out restrictions? Outlawing Mosley? It’s easy to dismiss these as “what ifs”, but on that basis, your whole argument is flawed as it’s hypothetical and bemoaning a future that hasn’t happened.
BTW, how many measles antibodies does someone have 6 months after recovering from it OR being vaccinated? Not many, but T-Cell memory is pretty important. Mainstream media doesn't seem to report or question that, they just love to scaremonger.
Breadvan72 said:
As always, you show your deep ignorance and your triviality of mind. Restrictions in WW2 came nowhere near the restrictions imposed this year. Your comment that arguments about civil liberties are just arguments for their own sake would be remarkable if we did not already know that you are a kneejerk authoritarian and/or habitual troll who simply repeats the same childish jibes on every thread that you post in. Nobody takes you seriously, because you never say anything serious. Back on the ignore list you go, as these days we must ration the troll food.
And as if by magic (or at least predicted) you play the man, not the ball. No attempt to discuss, no attempt to engage, just a tirade of abuse. I suppose it works for your doting audience in this thread. unident said:
I know your response will be to sneer and mock, as you don’t like challenge, as evidenced on other threads.
MickC said:
I've always got to laugh when people say stuff like 'There has been quite a bit of coverage over recent days that antibodies levels reduce over time, thus reducing any potential immunity' and then a few sentences on start talking about vaccines. The two views are incompatible, it just doesn't make sense.
They're not incompatible at all. The vaccine effects may only last 4-6 months, but if you vaccinate in Autumn that will cover the winter "flu season".MickC said:
I've always got to laugh when people say stuff like 'There has been quite a bit of coverage over recent days that antibodies levels reduce over time, thus reducing any potential immunity' and then a few sentences on start talking about vaccines. The two views are incompatible, it just doesn't make sense.
BTW, how many measles antibodies does someone have 6 months after recovering from it OR being vaccinated? Not many, but T-Cell memory is pretty important. Mainstream media doesn't seem to report or question that, they just love to scaremonger.
T cells are mentioned a lot in every article I’ve read. However, I’m not a medical expert, nor, I suspect, are you. The amazing thing about vaccines is they are rarely a one hit solution, nor are they an absolute solution. For example flu jabs are annual, tetanus requires a booster and so on. However, they tend to be effective in some, or at the very least effective in slowing / minimising impact on people. What the study has shown is that the idea of letting the virus run wild to create herd immunity is not likely to be a good idea. I’ve no doubt there will be another study along soon saying the opposite. What it is doing is showing how little we know and simply saying “sod it, let’s just give up and let it happen” isn’t going to be a good idea. BTW, how many measles antibodies does someone have 6 months after recovering from it OR being vaccinated? Not many, but T-Cell memory is pretty important. Mainstream media doesn't seem to report or question that, they just love to scaremonger.
I’ve little interest in discussing this anyway, views on both sides are entrenched, but as Breadvan has shown, he’s incapable of seeing middle ground. My life hasn’t changed that much, I take a few precautions and I agree that there is a need for restrictions. He though sees me as some sort of Stasi supporting stooge for daring not to share his views. Referendum binary thinking at its finest.
Ha! From the biggest contributor of sneering and mockery in every Covid thread on PH. Praise from Caesar is praise indeed. I am sorry that your comprehension skills are so deficient that you failed to see the comment about WW2 restrictions (or more likely pretended not to see a point based on knowledge that you cannot rebut with your customary content-free nonsense). Anyway, the bag of troll food really is empty now, so you will have to cast your bait into another pond.
Much as the lockdowns and limitations are arbitrary, ill-judged and confusing I'm not convinced the Government has much in the way of alternatives now.
Testing and track and trace are a fiasco, despite spunking more than the annual NHS primary care budget on T&T. They've lost the support of large swathes of the country (some through over use of rules and some, ironically, through perceived under use) and deaths are rising: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deaths
The NHS has built some extra capacity but it is yet to be seen if it's enough. Hopefully we get lucky on the flu season and we don't get a double whammy.
The economic and knock on health effects are inevitable with or without lockdown IMO.
The NHS simply can't work as efficiently when every patient, staff member or visitor is a potential source of the virus and a great many procedures spray potentially virus laden droplets about.
And as things get worse enough people will stay away from businesses (and healthcare settings) to stuff them anyway. At least a (well managed) lockdown puts everyone in the same boat and allows some consistency of financial support.
However all this is moot as the government have dropped the ball and are now a desperate piggy in the middle.
Testing and track and trace are a fiasco, despite spunking more than the annual NHS primary care budget on T&T. They've lost the support of large swathes of the country (some through over use of rules and some, ironically, through perceived under use) and deaths are rising: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deaths
The NHS has built some extra capacity but it is yet to be seen if it's enough. Hopefully we get lucky on the flu season and we don't get a double whammy.
The economic and knock on health effects are inevitable with or without lockdown IMO.
The NHS simply can't work as efficiently when every patient, staff member or visitor is a potential source of the virus and a great many procedures spray potentially virus laden droplets about.
And as things get worse enough people will stay away from businesses (and healthcare settings) to stuff them anyway. At least a (well managed) lockdown puts everyone in the same boat and allows some consistency of financial support.
However all this is moot as the government have dropped the ball and are now a desperate piggy in the middle.
Breadvan72 said:
Ha! From the biggest contributor of sneering and mockery in every Covid thread on PH. Praise from Caesar is praise indeed. I am sorry that your comprehension skills are so deficient that you failed to see the comment about WW2 restrictions (or more likely pretended not to see a point based on knowledge that you cannot rebut with your customary content-free nonsense). Anyway, the bag of troll food really is empty now, so you will have to cast your bait into another pond.
Rationing, death sentences for looting, huge financial penalties for profiteering, black outs, children sent to live miles from their families (some even to another continent). All of these are less than the minor inconveniences we currently have in the very short term You’ll see why I ignored it.
Note I’m not childish enough to bother with the insults. You keep them up though, I’m sure it plays well to some.
BV - did you watch Lord Sumptions lecture, posted on youtube by the Cambridge Law Faculty?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0
I've not yet watched but would be keen to hear your take.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDv2gk8aa0
I've not yet watched but would be keen to hear your take.
This sounds overly simplistic but my core belief for why we are continuing down the path of restrictions on liberty of healthy people is three fold:
1) consistsancy and strength in numbers, every other major economy, and our European neighbours are taking this route, and to turn away from it would mean having to answer more difficult questions.
2) these restrictions keep the focus of failure away from government. If the restrictions aren't working it's because "the people" don't follow them correctly. If only compliance was higher, if only people cared more etc. There is very little questioning of the effectiveness of the measures themselves.
3) they prevent the light being point where government doesn't want it. In Scotland, where I live, it was pointed out this week that care home staff still aren't being asymptomatically tested nor prevented from working in multiple care homes per day/week, despite us being 6 months into this great deadly pandemic . At one point 60% of the deaths in Scotland had been in care homes but very little is asked about the specific , targeted measures required to protect them to the extent possible. All that makes the mainstream news, is the death rates , hospital cases and resulting restrictions on the general population.
Because I am a simple minded man, I suspect the reasoning goes not much further than the above.
1) consistsancy and strength in numbers, every other major economy, and our European neighbours are taking this route, and to turn away from it would mean having to answer more difficult questions.
2) these restrictions keep the focus of failure away from government. If the restrictions aren't working it's because "the people" don't follow them correctly. If only compliance was higher, if only people cared more etc. There is very little questioning of the effectiveness of the measures themselves.
3) they prevent the light being point where government doesn't want it. In Scotland, where I live, it was pointed out this week that care home staff still aren't being asymptomatically tested nor prevented from working in multiple care homes per day/week, despite us being 6 months into this great deadly pandemic . At one point 60% of the deaths in Scotland had been in care homes but very little is asked about the specific , targeted measures required to protect them to the extent possible. All that makes the mainstream news, is the death rates , hospital cases and resulting restrictions on the general population.
Because I am a simple minded man, I suspect the reasoning goes not much further than the above.
unident said:
death sentences for looting,
No-one was ever sentenced to death.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33566789
"The government was so concerned about looting it brought in the death penalty and life sentences as a deterrent. However, perhaps with a view to the importance of morale, no-one was actually executed for looting and most were given heavy fines or shorter sentences."
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff