O/T Coronavirus Thread (3)

[animallittle3]

Even the New York Times is shaking its head in bewilderment at us .

Vast becoming a laughing stock this country .


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/o...?smid=tw-share

[animallittle3]

Germany is about 230 people per square km

England it’s about 430 per sq km

We are overcrowded and now we’re paying for it.

I think I know where your going with this with your historical footprint on this board .

Now I agree with you that immigration is a huge issue and needs scaling down but I'm far from a convinced it has contributed to the UK having the death toll it sadly has .

In fact you could look at this another way and thank feck we have so many working within the NHS right now because if we didn't we really would be fecked .

[WanChaiMiller]

Germany is about 230 people per square km

England it’s about 430 per sq km

We are overcrowded and now we’re paying for it.

Not exactly true. Other countries that are more densely populated coped better.

[WanChaiMiller]

The herd immunity thing is overrated. I have yet to see any evidence that it was a government policy. It was seen as an outcome of slowing spread to a level that was manageable without a vaccine being available

Obviously if you admit to herd immunity as being policy it holds the Government responsible for the early spread of the virus and finishes the premise of your defence of them.

[KerrAvon]

Really?

Of all the things you'd be willing to defend, I'm really surprised by this revisionist history.

12 March press conference:
"Our aim is not to stop everyone getting it, you can’t do that. And it’s not desirable, because you want to get some immunity in the population. We need to have immunity to protect ourselves from this in the future."
13th March:
https://twitter.com/bbcr4today/statu...90547783528448
15 March:
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...unity-11956793

This was very much a serious prospect until 'new data' on 23 March showed the death rate that would result and it was finally ruled out.

Really, John.

Your post is a fantastic example of the confirmation bias that you warned IBS against; you want to see failure on the part of the government and so you see evidence of the same within selected pronouncements upon it. I think there is a bit of outcome bias thrown in for good measure. That is not a criticism; everyone holds internal bias.

There is nothing within the links that you have put up to say that herd immunity was the aim of UK government policy. They indicate that the government, presumably on the back of scientific advice, took the view that it would not be possible to eliminate Covid19 completely and that they would instead seek to ‘flatten the curve’, or ‘reduce the peak’. I don’t claim to have any expertise, but my first degree (now hopelessly out of date) included courses on microbiology and mathematical modelling in biological systems and I can see why the government would adopt that stance. That such an approach might have resulted in what was regarded as a desirable outcome – herd immunity – was incidental to that.

I think the issue here is that Valance is a scientist not a politician. Valance spoke the truth as he saw it based upon his understanding of the science (the science that is is new, incomplete and – like all science subject to opinion). Because of the deaths that the acquisition of herd immunity might involve (and Valance was clear within one of your links that the science at that time was unable to predict the numbers with accuracy), that element of Valance’s comments was seized upon and taken out of context – not quite as blatantly as the ‘take it on the chin’ comment from Johnson’s, but out of context none the less.

As for the 'new data' on 23 March, I assume you mean the updated analysis that Craig Ferguson's team produced? The first point on that is that when you are within the first four months of a pandemic, new data and new analysis of the same will be emerging every day and a government that failed to acknowledge that could very properly be criticised for failing to acknowledge and respond to that. The second is that the government made it clear from the outset that its response was going to be phased and based upon the science. Nothing that happened before, on or after the 23rd March is inconsistent with such an approach.

In the final analysis, ‘herd immunity’ may prove to be the only way out of the current situation. There are no guarantees that a vaccine can be produced (although I think it likely). Not every illness is amenable to vaccination.

[KerrAvon]

He thinks I have the time, desire and intellect to create a persona of KerrAvon and then argue with myself.

It always makes me giggle, its very flattering he obviously thinks I'm smarter than I do.

I have lost count of how many posters I am supposed to be a multi of. It's a good thing that I am not a rampant narcissistic.

[KerrAvon]

This is what we look like from abroad - Sydney Morning Herald.

"Unlike Italy, the United Kingdom had time to prepare for the coronavirus tsunami. But as the death toll climbs, critics say Britain's response has suffered from a series of deadly mistakes and miscalculations"

"Says Martin McKee, professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and an adviser to the World Health Organisation: "The countries that moved fast have curtailed the epidemic. The countries that delayed have not. It's as simple as that."

Dr Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet medical journal, is even more damning: "The handling of the COVID-19 crisis in the UK is the most serious science policy failure in a generation."


https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/...28-p54o2d.html

With all due respect to the Sydney Morning Herald, their business is selling newspapers, not scientific analysis or the difficult task of navigating through a pandemic. The experts quoted within the article are well respected and should be listened to, but they have almost certainly been ‘opinion shopped’, with journalists seeking support for the article they wish to write as opposed to embarking upon a balanced research exercise.

[KerrAvon]

Obviously if you admit to herd immunity as being policy it holds the Government responsible for the early spread of the virus and finishes the premise of your defence of them.

I don’t accept the premise of your post. I have not defended the government as such.

My position is that it is far too early to judge the government’s actions. As David Spiegelhalter pointed out in the Guardian article that I linked to a few days ago (I would imagine that the Guardian editors are investigating how they came to publish it), it will be months if not year before meaningful comparisons can be made between the outcomes in different countries and even longer before the factors that gave rise to different outcomes can be determined. It follows that much of the criticism aimed at the government at the point is an example of the ‘confirmation bias’ that John decries and the ‘outcome bias’ and ‘hindsight bias’ that I have to deal with on a regular basis as part of my job.

To use an analogy from my work (screenshot opportunity for Mike), the jury of some posters on here has gone out and found the government guilty before the ‘crime’ that they are accused of is complete, let alone before the evidence has been gathered, collated and assessed. I know that I can’t stop people doing that and am not trying to, but it’s not very sensible or, to be very old fashioned, ‘just’.

The David Spiegelhalter link: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ther-countries

[Exiletyke]

I don’t accept the premise of your post. I have not defended the government as such.

My position is that it is far too early to judge the government’s actions. As David Spiegelhalter pointed out in the Guardian article that I linked to a few days ago (I would imagine that the Guardian editors are investigating how they came to publish it), it will be months if not year before meaningful comparisons can be made between the outcomes in different countries and even longer before the factors that gave rise to different outcomes can be determined. It follows that much of the criticism aimed at the government at the point is an example of the ‘confirmation bias’ that John decries and the ‘outcome bias’ and ‘hindsight bias’ that I have to deal with on a regular basis as part of my job.

To use an analogy from my work (screenshot opportunity for Mike), the jury of some posters on here has gone out and found the government guilty before the ‘crime’ that they are accused of is complete, let alone before the evidence has been gathered, collated and assessed. I know that I can’t stop people doing that and am not trying to, but it’s not very sensible or, to be very old fashioned, ‘just’.

The David Spiegelhalter link: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ther-countries

Any Gov't needs to be held to account for it's actions
To use your ill advised analogy the number of "crimes" commited to date is quite impressive by any standards
It's v1tally important that questions/accusations are made now
How long do you think it would take to enquire into the Govt's failings when all this horrible pandemic is over [if ever]
Hillsbro may well be our guide to the answer to that question

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

ignoring the obvious hoping that it doesn't exist won't help us tackle this virus and stop it from spreading.

we are a crowded island and the more crowded it becomes the more difficult it is to apply social isolation.

adding more people by whatever means just makes it more difficult.

impressive multi posting by the way