Quote from: petejh on April 30, 2020, 11:22:21 pmThat kind of thing won’t do Teestub. This forum’s posters demand blame to be ascribed. Never mind strength or evidence. Blame!Pete I think you are being slightly unfair to "this forum's posters" there by folding several issues into the "lack of evidence" category.The main concerns I have read (and posted) on here have been:Lack of PPESlow on testingLack of clarity from the government on strategy and actionsCare homesI would say those are pretty well evidenced, and internal UK matters, and therefore people should be held to account for it. Regardless of any data inconsistencies in deaths between countries, which is a totally separate and unrelated issue. It may be seen by some as being terribly unfair on the poor old party in charge but I'll live with that.On international comparisons, I will freely admit that overall no-one knows what the right strategy long term is. Who knows, maybe "herd immunity" was right all along once we take into account repeated waves? Perhaps those countries like New Zealand who have aced it in terms of deaths so far will be storing up epic problems for the future? This will become clear in the fullness of time, but it doesn't negate the fact that if you concentrate solely on the UK there have been definite deficiencies in the response. E.g. not implementing the recommendations of Operation Cygnus (nb not yet published - "maximum transparency"?). Not to mention that the UK response changed 180 degrees at one point, which seems to suggest a lack of preparation and muddled thinking despite the forewarnings. I could go on. If we had been better prepared as a nation then we might not need to be in lockdown.It seems an odd bit of fatalism to just say lets leave it to play out for a couple of years and come back to it when we know a bit more. But if that's what the government would rather we do as a nation i.e. nothing, then they should tell us soon, showing their reasoning.
That kind of thing won’t do Teestub. This forum’s posters demand blame to be ascribed. Never mind strength or evidence. Blame!
do you really think the people and media wouldn’t be howling in self-righteous protest if the government had chosen NOT to put up some arbitrary graph comparing us to other countries?! No matter how inaccurate that comparison really is?...if the government had truly been transparent and told the people that they weren’t showing comparisons because the graphs were apple-to-pear bullshit, the howls of outrage would then be about incompetence instead...
I agree with almost everything you say Nigel, they're all fair criticisms and the government needs to have a full independent inquiry as soon as possible when the situation stabilises. But might not have needed to be in lockdown? Really? Social distancing seems to be the best way to limit spread, and doesn't seem very effective without some degree of coercion.
Social distancing seems to be the best way to limit spread, and doesn't seem very effective in the UK?? without some degree of coercion.
But might not have needed to be in lockdown? Really? Social distancing seems to be the best way to limit spread, and doesn't seem very effective without some degree of coercion.
I'm not saying that this would have been the best option long term as I don't know, but in terms of the short term headline numbers of death rates then it is clearly a better strategy - see NZ, Taiwan, South Korea. At present we seem to be in a hybrid strategy of herd immunity for a month or so until they smelt the shit approaching the fan, then flip to total lockdown. And maybe now moving to test, trace, isolate, as recommended months ago by the WHO, but when the virus has already become well established rather than just a few cases, requiring a massive step change in testing numbers. It is clearly confused - the inconsistencies are glaring. The irony is I strongly suspect there was a political rather than medical / scientific motive for doing nothing at first, which was probably to keep the economy running. The other alternative is that we were simply so under-prepared due to years of penny-pinching that it wasn't even a workable option to do anything meaningful quickly enough. I will also grant the (claimed) possibility that this actually what the science said, but in that case why have they not persisted with the original "do nothing" strategy? The end result of the whole flawed process is that now we are locked down and the economy has taken a massive hit anyway.
Ha - Berlin is the only place in Germany where I have regularly encountered people giving the middle finger to rules (including crossing the road!) :D I have certainly found the attitude you describe in many other places in Germany though! Its the old adage that in the UK Policing is via consent rather than an order.
Trying to add some balance - what we have done right:1. Re-organised our hospital system so they were not over-run. Brilliant. 2. Got testing up to 100k per day (probably) in a pretty short period of time. Good. 3. As a population pretty much abided by a softly softly lockdown.4. Had what at first blush seems like a pretty good financial/jobs compensation/support package (certainly better than some places in the world).
you could say that we wouldn't have had to do any of those things at all if we had followed a clear strategy from the start, as per the other countries you mention.
I will also grant the (claimed) possibility that this actually what the science said, but in that case why have they not persisted with the original "do nothing" strategy?
Quote from: Nigel on May 01, 2020, 01:49:14 pmI'm not saying that this would have been the best option long term as I don't know, but in terms of the short term headline numbers of death rates then it is clearly a better strategy - see NZ, Taiwan, South Korea. At present we seem to be in a hybrid strategy of herd immunity for a month or so until they smelt the shit approaching the fan, then flip to total lockdown. And maybe now moving to test, trace, isolate, as recommended months ago by the WHO, but when the virus has already become well established rather than just a few cases, requiring a massive step change in testing numbers. It is clearly confused - the inconsistencies are glaring. The irony is I strongly suspect there was a political rather than medical / scientific motive for doing nothing at first, which was probably to keep the economy running. The other alternative is that we were simply so under-prepared due to years of penny-pinching that it wasn't even a workable option to do anything meaningful quickly enough. I will also grant the (claimed) possibility that this actually what the science said, but in that case why have they not persisted with the original "do nothing" strategy? The end result of the whole flawed process is that now we are locked down and the economy has taken a massive hit anyway.I think this sums up what I feel too (more or less). I appreciate that all strategy will adapt/change according to the latest evidence and how things evolve - but it does seem that the countries that have fared better (Germany, Korea, NZ) had a firm strategy - kept to it - and it worked. Even Sweden to an extent.. We seem to have flipped about from one 3 point plan to another 3 point plan etc... Trying to add some balance - what we have done right:1. Re-organised our hospital system so they were not over-run. Brilliant. 2. Got testing up to 100k per day (probably) in a pretty short period of time. Good. 3. As a population pretty much abided by a softly softly lockdown.4. Had what at first blush seems like a pretty good financial/jobs compensation/support package (certainly better than some places in the world).
Hopefully the above works. Really nice animated gif of the results from the CV19 app that 2.8 million people are reporting symptoms (or not) on in the UK. Link to page below if image above doesn’t work. https://covid.joinzoe.com/data#levels-over-time
WE MUST MEET MY 100K DEADLINE - TEST ANYONE!!! would seem to be more sensible... (ahem - not saying this is what is happening - of course.....)
Trying to add some balance - what we have done right:
Quote from: TobyD on May 01, 2020, 09:39:27 amideological soap boxing about austerity endlessly helps noone. Arguably, reducing the defecit was one of the most valuable pieces of preparation they did actually do. Is this a joke Toby? So running down public services (including NHS capacity), slashing funding to local government infrastructure which is now vital in contact tracing, avoiding stockpiling PPE for this exact scenario due to costings etc is valuable preparation?Having a reduced deficit is unarguably a good thing. Achieving that by imposing a decade of reduced funding to vital public services (which just happens to align with your ideological aim of a reduced state) is quite another.
ideological soap boxing about austerity endlessly helps noone. Arguably, reducing the defecit was one of the most valuable pieces of preparation they did actually do.
On international comparisons, I will freely admit that overall no-one knows what the right strategy long term is. Who knows, maybe "herd immunity" was right all along once we take into account repeated waves? Perhaps those countries like New Zealand who have aced it in terms of deaths so far will be storing up epic problems for the future? This will become clear in the fullness of time, but it doesn't negate the fact that if you concentrate solely on the UK there have been definite deficiencies in the response. E.g. not implementing the recommendations of Operation Cygnus (nb not yet published - "maximum transparency"?). Not to mention that the UK response changed 180 degrees at one point, which seems to suggest a lack of preparation and muddled thinking despite the forewarnings. I could go on. If we had been better prepared as a nation then we might not need to be in lockdown.It seems an odd bit of fatalism to just say lets leave it to play out for a couple of years and come back to it when we know a bit more. But if that's what the government would rather we do as a nation i.e. nothing, then they should tell us soon, showing their reasoning.
How many people do you suppose travel in and out of New Zealand daily? How many people do you suppose travel in and out of the UK daily?What about travel of, say, an 80 mile radius within New Zealand, versus within the UK?Is covid transmission exponential?If you start with higher numbers then do you extremely quickly have far higher numbers?Is the spread of a highly infectious virus harder to manage among a population of 66 million people or a population of 4.5 million people (spread across two islands). Does restricting the number of people travelling impact the transmission?
Trying to add some balance - what we have done right:3. As a population pretty much abided by a softly softly lockdown.
Quote from: tomtom on May 01, 2020, 03:57:51 pm WE MUST MEET MY 100K DEADLINE - TEST ANYONE!!! would seem to be more sensible... (ahem - not saying this is what is happening - of course.....)Not even that TTThe cheque's in the post