O/T Coronavirus Thread (3)

[WanChaiMiller]

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

Not true. Hong Kong and Singapore are far more densely populated islands and coped much better.

[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.

Hong Kong is 6,300 per sq km. Singapore 8,350.

[great_fire]

Not true. Hong Kong and Singapore are far more densely populated islands and coped much better.

Hong Kong is not an island, well it is, there is a Hong Kong Island but that's only a small part of Hong Kong.

You can't really compare those places and South Korea and Taiwan too with the UK though, they're all run by authoritarian regimes and are used to following orders, plus they have had the experience of SARS and MERS in the past so are used to wearing masks, testing people's temperatures and social distancing.

[millertop]

Think this app will be a good thing (hopeful it will work) maybe when they have the main hotspots some places that seem to be very low with the virus could start to move along slowly

[John2]

That such an approach might have resulted in what was regarded as a desirable outcome – herd immunity – was incidental to that.

"Our aim is not to stop everyone getting it, you can’t do that. And it’s not desirable"

This is not talk of incidental, this is talk of preferential. That's not my bias, that's a clear reading of the words.

You're right, Valance is not a politician and he won't have done the best job articulating, but this series of comments came 6 days after Johnson went on TV and talked about herd immunity as one possible option. You're right to say he didn't say it was the favoured one, as some people have taken it out of context to imply he was suggesting.

This series of quotes will have been carefully managed. They were not countered or 'cleared up' by the government. They went out as the leading scientific approach we had. This didn't change until the new data on the 23rd March showed just how deadly this approach would be.

In reality, the government will have managed it so they can promote herd immunity in a way that people can interpret it differently. We can legitimately have different readings, we are both biased. But there are other factors that paint a fuller picture. Do you find it unimaginable that Cummings said of refusing to lockdown - "if that means some pensioners die, too bad”? Or do you think he, on balance, probably did?

It's taken a month and a half for the government to get increasingly embarrassed that they've started to clarify "what we really meant". Its all too convenient to wait this long and then start revising it. Why not clear all this up back then?

I'm not criticising their changing course on the 23rd, I'm glad they did. I'm also not arguing that we won't or shouldn't adopt herd immunity as circumstances evolve in the future.

But a cold hard look at the reality is that while almost every other country was implementing lockdown, our government was sending its leading advisor to play up the merits of herd immunity in an attempt to justify why they were resisting lockdown in contradiction to the policies of almost every other nation. I was furious about this at the time, this is not me remembering through tinted glasses.

[great_fire]

18 million arrivals and just 273 screened makes me wonder why we've all had to stay at home.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aly-Spain.html

[KerrAvon]

"Our aim is not to stop everyone getting it, you can’t do that. And it’s not desirable"

This is not talk of incidental, this is talk of preferential. That's not my bias, that's a clear reading of the words.

You're right, Valance is not a politician and he won't have done the best job articulating, but this series of comments came 6 days after Johnson went on TV and talked about herd immunity as one possible option. You're right to say he didn't say it was the favoured one, as some people have taken it out of context to imply he was suggesting.

This series of quotes will have been carefully managed. They were not countered or 'cleared up' by the government. They went out as the leading scientific approach we had. This didn't change until the new data on the 23rd March showed just how deadly this approach would be.

In reality, the government will have managed it so they can promote herd immunity in a way that people can interpret it differently. We can legitimately have different readings, we are both biased. But there are other factors that paint a fuller picture. Do you find it unimaginable that Cummings said of refusing to lockdown - "if that means some pensioners die, too bad”? Or do you think he, on balance, probably did?

It's taken a month and a half for the government to get increasingly embarrassed that they've started to clarify "what we really meant". Its all too convenient to wait this long and then start revising it. Why not clear all this up back then?

I'm not criticising their changing course on the 23rd, I'm glad they did. I'm also not arguing that we won't or shouldn't adopt herd immunity as circumstances evolve in the future.

But a cold hard look at the reality is that while almost every other country was implementing lockdown, our government was sending its leading advisor to play up the merits of herd immunity in an attempt to justify why they were resisting lockdown in contradiction to the policies of almost every other nation. I was furious about this at the time, this is not me remembering through tinted glasses.

I’m not sure how your part quote helps your argument. The key element of that passage is that it impossible to stop everyone getting [Covid19]. That, with respect, is a statement of fact (frankly, it’s a statement of the bleeding obvious). There is no magic medicine distilled from unicorn tears or similar coming over the horizon.

Government policy was clear in that it aimed to ‘flatten the curve’ whilst accepting the reality that it could not stop everyone from being infected. Unpalatable though it might be to the ‘profits not people’ Twitter criers, the policy also aimed to protect the economy that we all rely upon for our livelihoods and well-being. An incidental outcome to that strategy is the possibility of the development of a degree of herd immunity. That is another reality, but unpalatable again because of the deaths that would accompany it.

Johnson did not explicitly talk about herd immunity, but I am grateful for the acknowledgment that the TV interview has been widely (and deliberately) misquoted to suggest that he was advocating ‘taking it on the chin’. I’m certain that would have been an option that was discussed by the government’s scientific advisers, because it was an option, albeit one that was rejected as it should have been. I will come back to that interview later.

I note your leap of faith that quotes would have been carefully managed. They ought to have been, but as I have commented on this and other threads, I think government comms. have been poorly handled (in part because Johnson likes to be liked). Scientists tend to talk science not politics and Valance is a scientist.

As for Valance’s comments not being countered or cleared up – here is what Matt Hancock said two days later: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...protect-lives/

And here is the government Coronavirus Action Plan published on 3rd March. Tell me how many references to herd immunity you find within it: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-across-the-uk

I didn’t really follow the Cummings story, but have had a quick look. I am in the same boat as you in that I have no idea what he said. I am mindful that he is not a popular chap and is the bête noire of the Left and so am alive to the possibilities that people might choose to misrepresent him. That is how my training and career has taught me to look at evidence. As you have acknowledged, Johnson was widely misquoted after his interview on ‘This morning’ (some posters on here even ran with that deliberate distortion of reality despite the relevant clip being there for them to see). Unlike Johnson on ‘This Morning’ we don’t have access to what Cummings actually said and so can make no determination on the balance of probabilities (or any other standard) upon what he said. Only someone driven by confirmation bias could do that.

As for the notion that the Imperial Research published on the 23rd March changed the government’s position, I am mindful of another bit of evidence, which is the history of the passage of the Coronavirus Act 2020. That piece of legislation contained all the legal ‘tools’ needed to implement a lockdown. It had its first reading on 19th March, which rather suggests that the government was planning a phased response as its action plan indicates.

With respect, your statement that In reality, the government will have managed it so they can promote herd immunity in a way that people can interpret it differently could be used as an illustration of the dangers of confirmation bias. You want to believe it, you belong to a political party that wants to believe it so you believe it and assert it as fact.

[John2]

I hadn't seen the Matt Hancock piece in the Telegraph unfortunately. That does undermine the point I was making about the government not correcting the record.

I suspect we agree more than we appear to that this was a problem of communication, because I had perceived it very differently. I was certainly influenced by my biases. Its also fair to say that when there are multiple conflicting sources this is a natural consequence.

On many things, I agree with you 100%. It will be impossible to properly asses the governments response until we have a much clearer image of the outcomes and information that was available at the time. That doesn't mean we can't make early judgements. A policeman catching a masked man running out of a jewellery store with a bag full of diamonds might make some judgements too.

You seem to be applying a courtroom level burden of proof that I subjectively disagree is required. This is the court of public opinion. Based on all the evidence we have available, the government has been caught with its trousers down. You are right to challenge when some of the evidence is wrong. In a democracy it is reasonable to point to the currently available facts too. The extent to which that is appropriate or fair is subjective, and a consequence of our own internal biases.

I think many people are too keen to defend certain things that will ultimately be proven indefensible.

[animallittle3]

Well it's to be hoped Johnson has a bit more in his arsenal than he displayed today at PMQ's .

It wouldn't be so bad for the PM but SKS is actually only doing a few stretches before he actually takes to the training field never mind the battle of a PL fixture between the top two .

It's no good looking around for moral support from your lap dogs Johnson when SKS asks you a question , there's nobody there other than Hanc@ck who couldn't have looked more terrified if there was a noose round his neck and he was stood on a chair .

No wonder Hanc@ck looked terrified , now he's 200k test figures to fiddle and he couldn't manage the 100k he set himself .

A bit like shooting fish in a barrel for SKS .

Strangling Johnson with his party's own words is a bit difficult to wriggle out of , the way he set Johnson up and then waved the government's own graph was class .

I suspect a bit of honesty might serve you better Johnson when SKS is holding you to account .

I know it's a bit of a life changing event for you but four more years of SKS making you look a monkey is the alternative .

[sota]

Come on Sota let’s hear is it

Well Top, seeing as you asked.
It was about 5 years ago when I was a professional mingler. One of my Missus's clients was the Ritz Carlton group and they have a hotel and residencies downtown and a Beach Club on Lido Key. Our contact at the Ritz asked me to mingle at the Beach Club as she said I look the part (whatever that means).
Anyway, my job was to mingle and look good and help attract new members. It seemed to work even though the joining fee was $120,000 and then $10,000 a year membership.The bar was free for me so all I had to do was drink copious amounts of Grey Goose and mingle.
Afterwards Mrs Sota and I would eat in the restaurant.... all on the house.
I spent one evening chatting to an attractive woman who gave me her room number, as usual, but she bored me to tears moaning about the fact that she'd just got a tax bill for $3,000,000!
Not a bad evenings graft, I'm sure Roly will agree.
PS Graeme Souness was a member there then but I think he sold up.