The new "rule of six" -- and the absence of an SI
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
On another topic, arts organisations that receive "Culture Recovery Fund" grants are required by the terms of the grant to "Welcome this funding on your website ... and in your newsletters ..." and "to alert your local media outlets"...
...which isn't at all Stalinist.
Really?!! Well that would explain why my Facebook is suddenly full of theatres proclaiming the good news in an extremely identikit way....which isn't at all Stalinist.
I mean I got that they were pleased, but they’re all pleased in exactly the same way......this suddenly makes sense...!
Breadvan72 said:
barian said:
Sometimes, kicking the can down the road is the best option. This is one of those cases. It buys time for a vaccine (if one can be found) and improved therapeutics, and lowers the demand on the NHS over the winter. The "do nothing" advocates need to explain how they think their approach would play out in the real world.
There is, however, the very tiny matter of the economy to consider, and the economy isn't some abstract thing on charts and graphs - it's about the reality of destitution for a great many if it goes wrong, and it is a no brainer to observe that poverty is bad for mortality. In addition, your argument displays its fatal flaw when you say "buys time for a vaccine (if one can be found)". We all hope that a vaccine can be found, and it is we hope probable that this will happen, but it's only probable, not certain. My objection to the current policy is that it hinges on a vaccine becoming available. It's a fingers crossed and hope really hard policy. Planning against contingencies is of course normal, but this sort of guessing and hoping is a bit unusual as a basis for policy.
I do not think that anyone says "do nothing", but I am becoming more sceptical of the "something" that this Government has chosen to do. among the problems are that the Government is not transparent in its decision making, is unclear in its messaging, and has forfeited trust through a series of misjudgements.
You select one of the three points I advanced, reject it and on that basis pronounce the entire argument fatally flawed. In any event, your rejection displays muddled thinking. You accept that planning against contingencies is normal but argue that planning against the contingency of vaccine availability is inappropriate because it is not certain.
Plenty of people are arguing for a do nothing approach, including those who in March were claiming that the infection was widespread and we were on the point of achieving herd immunity. I am at one with you in lacking confidence in the Government's approach, which is demonstrably ineffective in controlling the virus while inflicting economic damage.
It would be informative if, having rightly rejected the current approach and do nothing, you could indicate how you would proceed, if not on the basis of the SAGE advice.
I suggest that the muddled thinking is yours. You advocate waiting for a vaccine but accept that there may not be one. Your suggested course simply ignores the economy. My point is that "cross your fingers and hope very hard" is not a sound basis for contingency planning.
I am very reluctant to advocate any curbs on personal liberties, but at present we have an ineffective system based on curbing the liberties of everyone. Could we have a more effective system that curbs the liberties of some people, for example people over age X? I am very reluctant to argue for that.
Societies that have done relatively well in the crisis have tended to maximise testing. The virus can't be checked if we are guessing about who has got it. The lamentable UK record on testing is detailed in the Matthew d'Ancona piece linked to above. Government and advisers - all to blame for a series of rubbish decisions, which could be seen to be rubbish when made.
So, no Rocket Science here: stop flapping about with measures that are more for looks than effect, and commit massive resources to testing. Also, enough with the Brexit BS already - join in international programmes. British exceptionalism is the bane of Britain.
I am very reluctant to advocate any curbs on personal liberties, but at present we have an ineffective system based on curbing the liberties of everyone. Could we have a more effective system that curbs the liberties of some people, for example people over age X? I am very reluctant to argue for that.
Societies that have done relatively well in the crisis have tended to maximise testing. The virus can't be checked if we are guessing about who has got it. The lamentable UK record on testing is detailed in the Matthew d'Ancona piece linked to above. Government and advisers - all to blame for a series of rubbish decisions, which could be seen to be rubbish when made.
So, no Rocket Science here: stop flapping about with measures that are more for looks than effect, and commit massive resources to testing. Also, enough with the Brexit BS already - join in international programmes. British exceptionalism is the bane of Britain.
PS: All of this is academic because it supposes an efficient and honest Government. It is clear that this Government is crippled by the sheer incompetence of its members, from the top down, and it is additionally crippled by its religious commitment to placing contracts where they may best advantage cronies and backers, and to its go it alone nationalism. So, whichever way we turn, we're screwed.
Breadvan72 said:
I suggest that the muddled thinking is yours. You advocate waiting for a vaccine but accept that there may not be one. Your suggested course simply ignores the economy. My point is that "cross your fingers and hope very hard" is not a sound basis for contingency planning.
I am very reluctant to advocate any curbs on personal liberties, but at present we have an ineffective system based on curbing the liberties of everyone. Could we have a more effective system that curbs the liberties of some people, for example people over age X? I am very reluctant to argue for that.
Societies that have done relatively well in the crisis have tended to maximise testing. The virus can't be checked if we are guessing about who has got it. The lamentable UK record on testing is detailed in the Matthew d'Ancona piece linked to above. Government and advisers - all to blame for a series of rubbish decisions, which could be seen to be rubbish when made.
So, no Rocket Science here: stop flapping about with measures that are more for looks than effect, and commit massive resources to testing. Also, enough with the Brexit BS already - join in international programmes. British exceptionalism is the bane of Britain.
I agree with what you say, except for the small part which I have highlighted possibly because I might be included in some definitions of X. In Birmingham, the incidence of covid is six times higher in university students than in the general population, so if any restrictions are to be introduced they should apply to those who are at the greatest risk of catching, and more importantly spreading the virus. Controlling the spread must surely be the most important strategy.I am very reluctant to advocate any curbs on personal liberties, but at present we have an ineffective system based on curbing the liberties of everyone. Could we have a more effective system that curbs the liberties of some people, for example people over age X? I am very reluctant to argue for that.
Societies that have done relatively well in the crisis have tended to maximise testing. The virus can't be checked if we are guessing about who has got it. The lamentable UK record on testing is detailed in the Matthew d'Ancona piece linked to above. Government and advisers - all to blame for a series of rubbish decisions, which could be seen to be rubbish when made.
So, no Rocket Science here: stop flapping about with measures that are more for looks than effect, and commit massive resources to testing. Also, enough with the Brexit BS already - join in international programmes. British exceptionalism is the bane of Britain.
Breadvan72 said:
I suggest that the muddled thinking is yours. You advocate waiting for a vaccine but accept that there may not be one. Your suggested course simply ignores the economy. My point is that "cross your fingers and hope very hard" is not a sound basis for contingency planning.
I am very reluctant to advocate any curbs on personal liberties, but at present we have an ineffective system based on curbing the liberties of everyone. Could we have a more effective system that curbs the liberties of some people, for example people over age X? I am very reluctant to argue for that.
Societies that have done relatively well in the crisis have tended to maximise testing. The virus can't be checked if we are guessing about who has got it. The lamentable UK record on testing is detailed in the Matthew d'Ancona piece linked to above. Government and advisers - all to blame for a series of rubbish decisions, which could be seen to be rubbish when made.
So, no Rocket Science here: stop flapping about with measures that are more for looks than effect, and commit massive resources to testing. Also, enough with the Brexit BS already - join in international programmes. British exceptionalism is the bane of Britain.
I agree entirely with you that better testing etc. is essential, and the fairly robust criticism of the current state in the SAGE paper deserves more attention than it is getting. But that is not going to happen in the next few weeks, and we have to deal with the situation as it is. I am sorry that you continue to misunderstand or misconstrue that part of my original argument you addressed. Let me have another try in simple terms. Let us say, for example, that a "circuit breaker" lockdown will avoid 10,000 deaths over the next six months and there is a 50% probability of an effective vaccine arriving in that time. If one does not then those deaths are merely delayed (which actually has some utility, but we will disregard for this example). If it does those lives, in this example, are all saved. In risk management terms, the expected benefit of the lockdown is 5000 lives saved (50% of 10,000). This expected benefit is then weighed against the harms of the measure, and might be found worthwhile, or not. They are not ignored. This seems to me a fairly straightforward argument to follow, but if it isn't I shall give up.I am very reluctant to advocate any curbs on personal liberties, but at present we have an ineffective system based on curbing the liberties of everyone. Could we have a more effective system that curbs the liberties of some people, for example people over age X? I am very reluctant to argue for that.
Societies that have done relatively well in the crisis have tended to maximise testing. The virus can't be checked if we are guessing about who has got it. The lamentable UK record on testing is detailed in the Matthew d'Ancona piece linked to above. Government and advisers - all to blame for a series of rubbish decisions, which could be seen to be rubbish when made.
So, no Rocket Science here: stop flapping about with measures that are more for looks than effect, and commit massive resources to testing. Also, enough with the Brexit BS already - join in international programmes. British exceptionalism is the bane of Britain.
Breadvan72 said:
You appear to have misread what I said - I did not argue for locking up all people over age X.
Locking up students is disproportionate. They rarely get very ill. Millennials are not rebellious - they are very compliant, do group think, and will not go to see Granny if told not to.
Not rebellious? Have you seen the state of the majority of town / city centres around 10pm on weekends currently?Locking up students is disproportionate. They rarely get very ill. Millennials are not rebellious - they are very compliant, do group think, and will not go to see Granny if told not to.
The problem remain that if you don’t lock up infected students then they are able to wander freely and spread the virus far and wide. Equally, locking up the older generation is a bit Logan’s Run.
The criticism of the government is fair to some extent. They are a bunch of self serving idiots, but they’re what we’ve got. I’m not sure anyone could do much better with this pandemic. It feels like being atop a burning building with no way out. The only options are jump to your death, or get burned alive. Some are criticism the idea of jumping saying being burned alive is bette, other arguing the opposite. It’s no wonder some trapped there are praying for evolution to kick in and sprout wings.
Breadvan72 said:
You appear to have misread what I said - I did not argue for locking up all people over age X.
Locking up students is disproportionate. They rarely get very ill. Millennials are not rebellious - they are very compliant, do group think, and will not go to see Granny if told not to.
Millenials? Old news mate, they're all in their 30s now. This lot are Gen Z.Locking up students is disproportionate. They rarely get very ill. Millennials are not rebellious - they are very compliant, do group think, and will not go to see Granny if told not to.
unident said:
Not rebellious? Have you seen the state of the majority of town / city centres around 10pm on weekends currently?
The problem remain that if you don’t lock up infected students then they are able to wander freely and spread the virus far and wide. Equally, locking up the older generation is a bit Logan’s Run.
The criticism of the government is fair to some extent. They are a bunch of self serving idiots, but they’re what we’ve got. I’m not sure anyone could do much better with this pandemic. It feels like being atop a burning building with no way out. The only options are jump to your death, or get burned alive. Some are criticism the idea of jumping saying being burned alive is bette, other arguing the opposite. It’s no wonder some trapped there are praying for evolution to kick in and sprout wings.
The options are closer to "walk out down these stairs, but maybe 1 in 200 of you will fall down the stairs and die. Or get burned alive."The problem remain that if you don’t lock up infected students then they are able to wander freely and spread the virus far and wide. Equally, locking up the older generation is a bit Logan’s Run.
The criticism of the government is fair to some extent. They are a bunch of self serving idiots, but they’re what we’ve got. I’m not sure anyone could do much better with this pandemic. It feels like being atop a burning building with no way out. The only options are jump to your death, or get burned alive. Some are criticism the idea of jumping saying being burned alive is bette, other arguing the opposite. It’s no wonder some trapped there are praying for evolution to kick in and sprout wings.
The nobody could do better mantra is easily answered by pointing to, for example, Germany.
Johnson is, as someone pointed out the other day, a politician whose long list of failures in office are evident from his record, but whose self promotion and whose fanbase constantly compare him to Churchill when bigging up Johnson's supposed strengths. The comparison is of course ridiculous, and on the subject of crises in general, when WW2 happened a very talented cross-party Government was soon assembled. We face a big crisis and have a Government line up almost unparalleled in their unfitness to hold responsible offices. Oh well!
Johnson is, as someone pointed out the other day, a politician whose long list of failures in office are evident from his record, but whose self promotion and whose fanbase constantly compare him to Churchill when bigging up Johnson's supposed strengths. The comparison is of course ridiculous, and on the subject of crises in general, when WW2 happened a very talented cross-party Government was soon assembled. We face a big crisis and have a Government line up almost unparalleled in their unfitness to hold responsible offices. Oh well!
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 13th October 14:48
CrutyRammers said:
The options are closer to "walk out down these stairs, but maybe 1 in 200 of you will fall down the stairs and die. Or get burned alive."
The metaphor was more to demonstrate the options available to the government, not the specifics of coronavirus. Kind of a rock and a hard place scenario. As in they have two routes and both of them involve the end of this government. However, if it is 1 in 200 then that equates to about 335,000 dead and probably 5-10 times that amount with ongoing after effects for a period of time and all the cost that entails. No government is going to say “yep, sorry if you die, or get ill, or lose a loved one, how sad, never mind, carry on”. whatever the stats are it makes my point. Either sacrifice a portion of society and create a burden / cost on the NHS / nation for a long time for those who get seriously ill, but don’t die, or create a burden / cost to the nation / economy for a long time by locking down partially or fully.
unident said:
The metaphor was more to demonstrate the options available to the government, not the specifics of coronavirus. Kind of a rock and a hard place scenario. As in they have two routes and both of them involve the end of this government.
However, if it is 1 in 200 then that equates to about 335,000 dead and probably 5-10 times that amount with ongoing after effects for a period of time and all the cost that entails. No government is going to say “yep, sorry if you die, or get ill, or lose a loved one, how sad, never mind, carry on”. whatever the stats are it makes my point. Either sacrifice a portion of society and create a burden / cost on the NHS / nation for a long time for those who get seriously ill, but don’t die, or create a burden / cost to the nation / economy for a long time by locking down partially or fully.
Sorry to pick up on one specific point, but about "5-10 times that with on going effects for a period of time", if you're talking about ' long covid ' then it looks like that's going to be unavoidable: https://www.ft.com/content/d2e00128-7889-4d5d-84a3...However, if it is 1 in 200 then that equates to about 335,000 dead and probably 5-10 times that amount with ongoing after effects for a period of time and all the cost that entails. No government is going to say “yep, sorry if you die, or get ill, or lose a loved one, how sad, never mind, carry on”. whatever the stats are it makes my point. Either sacrifice a portion of society and create a burden / cost on the NHS / nation for a long time for those who get seriously ill, but don’t die, or create a burden / cost to the nation / economy for a long time by locking down partially or fully.
This is free to read, and is from the UK head of the vaccine taskforce. They have no intention of vaccinating most of the population, which is reasonable, but it does raise the question of how 'long covid' will be avoided. Answer would appear to be it won't be.
deeb0 said:
Sorry to pick up on one specific point, but about "5-10 times that with on going effects for a period of time", if you're talking about ' long covid ' then it looks like that's going to be unavoidable: https://www.ft.com/content/d2e00128-7889-4d5d-84a3...
This is free to read, the
I’m not sure that says what you think it does. Long Covid or whatever fancy name they’ve given it is going to be suffered by those that would get a vaccine when / if one is found. My comment that you quoted is purely extrapolating what the impact could be if we just let it run through the population unchecked now without a vaccine. This is free to read, the
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff