[abarro81]

Stay at home like they were asked?

Were we asked that? I had a v quick look back at news from 20th March (the Friday before the lockdown) and it looks mostly like we were being asked to avoid unnecessary social contact, not to stay at home.

[Nigel]

Turns out David Spiegelhalter is on SAGE.

Is this a simple statement of fact or am I missing something?.............

Help me out here I'm struggling to know the rules of what they should be doing, to be doing it right!

No you didn't miss anything, it was a simple statement of fact. I'd just looked over the SAGE member list, that name stood out as having already been mentioned recently in the thread, so I raised it in case it was of any interest to those who had been discussing that topic.

Now I've had a think, my only personal comment on this would be that it was the same day on which 1) UK Gov changed to counting "all settings" deaths, 2) Prof Spiegelhalter's article came out, and 3) his article was referenced by Whitty in the briefing. Given that they both sit on SAGE then it *looks* coordinated, which was not clear at the time. That is all I draw from it. Beyond that then you can concoct any theory you like, ranging from the mundanely informative to the machiavellianly conspiratorial, as to why. I'll leave that to others.

On the transparency point, if the above was coordinated then the effect is that we have received a very thin sliver of the thinking of one or two people on SAGE via the backdoor of a seemingly random and independent article in the Guardian. Do all of SAGE agree?

On the other questions of transparency, my instinctive first reaction would be that the maximum extreme end of live-streaming SAGE would be a nonsense for various reasons. However I would expect at least the minimum that their findings and recommendations to the government would be summarised in plain language and published somewhere in the public domain in a timely manner. When the government then acts we can all see on what basis. The advantages should be obvious. Not least for the scientists who actually sit on SAGE! The present system does seem to allow the government to "follow the science", thus setting "the science" up for a bit of a fall, if required. To give an example, Priti Patel has recently said in parliament that the UK instigated no border controls (in stark contrast to most other countries) because "that is what the science said". We now know that they did quarantine some incoming travellers. 273 to be precise. Out of millions. Obviously all our first cases were imported. Is 273 the amount the science said? It would be good to know...

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this "alternative SAGE" is all a part of the scientists, perhaps even those actually on SAGE, suggesting that perhaps we haven't been following their recommendations after all...

[ali k]

Stay at home like they were asked?

Were we asked that? I had a v quick look back at news from 20th March (the Friday before the lockdown) and it looks mostly like we were being asked to avoid unnecessary social contact, not to stay at home.

No we weren't. And the 22nd March press conference was the one in which Johnson seemed incredulous that police might get involved in enforcing social distancing when asked.

[Bonjoy]

I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.

Yeh agreed. The final Friday blow out all across the country in the pubs, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, family gatherings etc was probably where a bit more sweat and saliva was swapped than up on the top of Snowdon. And that natural human behaviour should have been entirely predictable (by SAGE) when lockdown had been warned was coming but not yet enforced.

Yes,this.
Everyone is told not to go to pubs/shops/cinemas/gyms etc. The sun comes out at the weekend for the first time in months - what the actual fuck else did anyone think the contents of Nandos/Whetherspoons/Meadowhall (plus all the usual people who go outside) where going to do with their time?

Stay at home like they were asked?

You do realise that you’re all just effectively agreeing with ChrisJ, but just giving a different example of the issues with trusting the British public’s judgement?

Regards agreeing or not with ChrisJ. I disagree with the "we collectively forced their hand" bit. My point was that the government statement earlier in the week had a predictable consequence and the government's behavior people should have predicted it.
Blaming everyone for what a portion did in the absence of an adequately strong request is merely blame shifting. Vagueness aside, it was clear to many that lockdown was on its way and this doubtless persuaded some that this weekend would be their last opportunity for some time to go out and about, hence a sort of request to stay at home having the opposite result. A vague and piecemeal staged lockdown was not the best approach and it's no surprise that people took it to mean different things at that point.

[Stu Littlefair]

I'm surprised to see people thinking we weren't being asked to stay home in the week before the lockdown. Lockdown started on 23rd March. On 17th March Boris addressed the nation and said "now is the time for everyone to stop .... all non-essential travel".

People should from home where "they possibly can" and "should avoid pubs, clubs, theatres and other such social venues".

Here's a news article from the 17th. https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-pm-urges-britons-to-avoid-pubs-restaurants-and-theatres-11958549

The advice given at that point is pretty similar to what the lockdown implemented. The difference is that in the week starting the 16th March they asked, and didn't tell, us to do it.

If you think that upon seeing that advice it was inevitable that the pubic would head en-mass to the national parks and keep going to pubs, then that is forcing the government into lockdown no?

There is an alternative universe where on the 18th March we all started behaving in a manner that was consistent with what the government requested. In that parallel universe we might still have retained the privilege of using our common sense about our activities, rather than enduring an enforced lockdown.

[Oldmanmatt]

I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.

Yeh agreed. The final Friday blow out all across the country in the pubs, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, family gatherings etc was probably where a bit more sweat and saliva was swapped than up on the top of Snowdon. And that natural human behaviour should have been entirely predictable (by SAGE) when lockdown had been warned was coming but not yet enforced.

Yes,this.
Everyone is told not to go to pubs/shops/cinemas/gyms etc. The sun comes out at the weekend for the first time in months - what the actual fuck else did anyone think the contents of Nandos/Whetherspoons/Meadowhall (plus all the usual people who go outside) where going to do with their time?

Stay at home like they were asked?

You do realise that you’re all just effectively agreeing with ChrisJ, but just giving a different example of the issues with trusting the British public’s judgement?

Regards agreeing or not with ChrisJ. I disagree with the "we collectively forced their hand" bit. My point was that the government statement earlier in the week had a predictable consequence and the government's behavior people should have predicted it.
Blaming everyone for what a portion did in the absence of an adequately strong request is merely blame shifting. Vagueness aside, it was clear to many that lockdown was on its way and this doubtless persuaded some that this weekend would be their last opportunity for some time to go out and about, hence a sort of request to stay at home having the opposite result. A vague and piecemeal staged lockdown was not the best approach and it's no surprise that people took it to mean different things at that point.

My impression is very much that the scientific advice changed abruptly and significantly.

Whether that was a change of heart from the experts or the sudden lifting of a politically motivated filter on that advice, remains to be determined.

[Bonjoy]

There is an alternative universe where on the 18th March we all started behaving in a manner that was consistent with what the government requested. In that parallel universe we might still have retained the privilege of using our common sense about our activities, rather than enduring an enforced lockdown.

To take that more literally than it was probably intended, I don't think there is such a parallel universe. People are too diverse.  If you re-ran these events a billion times, the same inputs would produce the same outcomes. Individuals are unpredictable, 66 million much less so.
Basing policy on what you'd like to happen, rather than what you know will actually happen seems unwise.

[Stu Littlefair]

Bonjoy - I don't disagree with any of that. What I don't understand is that what you are saying is that muppet behaviour by a significant minority was inevitable without forced restrictions, but that we weren't collectively responsible for forcing the government to lock down.

How do you square the circle?

[abarro81]

I'm surprised to see people thinking we weren't being asked to stay home in the week before the lockdown.

Huh, weird. I remember that day because we'd moved to home working on the Friday before and I remember thinking we'd only beaten the gov recommendation by a few days. I obviously didn't pick up on, or chose not to pick up on, the non-essential travel part. Although you already know that I find "essential" without a "for xxx" to be something that makes me want to    so maybe I just ignore anything with the word essential in it as being inherently dumb.

[ali k]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this "alternative SAGE" is all a part of the scientists, perhaps even those actually on SAGE, suggesting that perhaps we haven't been following their recommendations after all...

Like the recommendation from SAGE that “a public message against shaking hands has additional value as a signal about the importance of hand hygiene. Encouraging others to politely decline a proffered hand-shake may have benefit” given on the same day (3rd March) as Johnson proudly announced at a press conference that he’d been to a hospital with Covid patients recently and ”shook hands with everybody and...I continue to shake hands”.

If such simple and easy to follow public health guidance from SAGE with no political implications/considerations can be so casually dismissed by the PM then it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that they haven’t been slavishly “following the science” when it comes to more politically sensitive decisions.

[T_B]

Stu, I think there’s a bit of hindsight going on.

I went out on Kinder for a ‘last’ big (socially distanced) run on the Sunday morning (22 March) with a mate as “we knew what was coming”. I don’t remember prior to that weekend being advised against all but essential travel? If it was reported in some media it wasn’t widespread. My expectation was that we’d be heading for lockdown that coming week.

I’d already taken my kids out of school the previous week before the Gov policy changed, so was alive to the need for social distancing.

My mind was on social distancing not not travelling.

[Stu Littlefair]

The counter-narrative to the suggestion that, collectively, we can’t be trusted to do the right thing is that - in truth - the vast majority of people are well meaning and CAN be trusted. But that you need to be very clear about what you want them to do.

http://timharford.com/2020/04/were-actually-decent-people-in-a-crisis-and-stories-claiming-otherwise-do-harm/

If you buy that, the explanation for the week prior to lockdown is that government messaging was inconsistent and unclear - so people didn’t know what was expected. There’s merit in this - as Alex’s experience clearly shows. Witness also Boris’ own hedging about whether he’d see his Mum on Mother’s Day, despite his own government advice clearly ruling it out...

But there’s no hindsight here TB - no non-essential travel was the government’s official advice from the 17th March. For whatever reason some were not aware but it’s in the news reports - clear as day.

[Bonjoy]

Bonjoy - I don't disagree with any of that. What I don't understand is that what you are saying is that muppet behaviour by a significant minority was inevitable without forced restrictions, but that we weren't collectively responsible for forcing the government to lock down.

How do you square the circle?

Because I dont believe in holding people responsible collectively for individual decisions.
I'm not to blame for people hanging bags of dog poo on hedges. If the government banned dogs tomorrow because of the practice I would resent being held collectively responsible.

[Bonjoy]

The counter-narrative to the suggestion that, collectively, we can’t be trusted to do the right thing is that - in truth - the vast majority of people are well meaning and CAN be trusted. But that you need to be very clear about what you want them to do.

http://timharford.com/2020/04/were-actually-decent-people-in-a-crisis-and-stories-claiming-otherwise-do-harm/

If you buy that, the explanation for the week prior to lockdown is that government messaging was inconsistent and unclear - so people didn’t know what was expected. There’s merit in this - as Alex’s experience clearly shows. Witness also Boris’ own hedging about whether he’d see his Mum on Mother’s Day, despite his own government advice clearly ruling it out...

This was also my point. The advice was clearly not unequivocal (or internally consistent), hence people's varying recollections. Latitude will always result in multiple interpretations of varying validity, even if everyone is sincerely trying to follow the spirit of the guidance.

[Nigel]

To give an example, Priti Patel has recently said in parliament that the UK instigated no border controls (in stark contrast to most other countries) because "that is what the science said". We now know that they did quarantine some incoming travellers. 273 to be precise. Out of millions. Obviously all our first cases were imported. Is 273 the amount the science said? It would be good to know...

In the interests of transparency (!), just read that Vallance has testified to the Health Select Committee that:

"the idea that you could control this outbreak by stopping travel from one place would not work. He says the advice from SAGE was that either very draconian travel restrictions had to be imposed, or else it was not worth it".

So Patel was half right i.e. they clearly initially opted to quarantine Wuhan travellers (from one place), and was then presented with two scientifically considered options for the future. She chose the not worth it / do nothing option. It is at this point that seeing the "draconian measures" SAGE actually presented would be useful.

[ali k]

the explanation for the week prior to lockdown is that government messaging was inconsistent and unclear - so people didn’t know what was expected.

This wasn’t restricted just to the week before lockdown. Remember all the confusion over what was “essential” in the weeks following 23rd March because no guidance had been issued?

[petejh]

Nigel, 'Very draconian measures' would surely mean closing all of the major entry points from the EU/rest of the world into the UK - 12-15 major airports, plus 5 or 6 seaports and the channel tunnel.

What else might it mean, that would be 'draconian' and effective in preventing infected travellers arriving?

[ali k]

Nigel, 'Draconian' would surely mean closing all of the major entry points from the EU/rest of the world into the UK - 12-15 major airports, plus 5 or 6 seaports and the channel tunnel.

Are you one of the 2 un-named SAGE advisers Pete? 

I think it's quite hard to pre-empt exactly what the SAGE advice would have been. "Draconian measures" could have been temperature checks on all passengers/drivers, mandatory testing on arrival, mandatory 14 day quarantining (like the ones repatriated from the Diamond Princess cruise ship - remember that?), or all of the above. It wouldn't necessarily just be a blanket closure of all access points into the UK. But to achieve the above they would have needed to be way ahead of where they were at the time in terms of testing ability and isolation procedures so it may well have been the only viable option just to go with the 'do nothing' approach. In the same way as the 'test and isolate' strategy was abandoned early on due to the lack of testing capability.

If only they'd had...oh I don't know...an extra 38 days or so to get a head start!

[tomtom]

Our perceptions of draconian have probably shifted quite alot in the last 6 weeks!

[Oldmanmatt]

The counter-narrative to the suggestion that, collectively, we can’t be trusted to do the right thing is that - in truth - the vast majority of people are well meaning and CAN be trusted. But that you need to be very clear about what you want them to do.

http://timharford.com/2020/04/were-actually-decent-people-in-a-crisis-and-stories-claiming-otherwise-do-harm/

If you buy that, the explanation for the week prior to lockdown is that government messaging was inconsistent and unclear - so people didn’t know what was expected. There’s merit in this - as Alex’s experience clearly shows. Witness also Boris’ own hedging about whether he’d see his Mum on Mother’s Day, despite his own government advice clearly ruling it out...

But there’s no hindsight here TB - no non-essential travel was the government’s official advice from the 17th March. For whatever reason some were not aware but it’s in the news reports - clear as day.

On this one thread, out of at least 4 similar, in this clique of almost entirely (at a minimum) contributors with tertiary education, your post was number 586 on the subject of “who said what, when, what did they actually mean, why did they say that and not something else and why did other people not hear what I heard?”

So, yeah, direct, unequivocal, simple, instructions; will always be better (they weren’t enough of those things) and people are muppets, even if not overtly antagonistic.

[galpinos]

The problem with the statement "we followed the science" is that I doubt it is a clear cut answer and not necessarily everyone will agree. I would imagine the "scientific advice" is actually a spectrum of, "if we do this then this happens" from not doing a lot to restricting all freedoms and it's then a judgement call (made by who?) as to what extent or how forcibly measures are introduced.

It will be very interesting* in hindsight to compare the options "the science" put forward and how that was distorted/conveyed through the political lens of the government.

I think we can all agree that the government have not exactly covered themselves in glory in their communication of their message, with Boris' comment on shaking peoples' hands and going to see his Mother on Mother's Day, the general air of "it's not that bad/only the flu/no need to get all panicky about it" really permeated through society until everyone realised that it actually was a big deal.
 

[Nigel]

Pete, Ali has largely given the answer I would give so I won't rehash it. If we knew the exact measures proposed then we might see whether we were looking at a pure resource issue or not. Or whether this was actually practically surmountable given the will to do so or not i.e. was there a political decision not to bother, despite it being technically possible? As in the hypothetical perfect world it would probably have helped the immediate UK situation to have done it. Being frank I suspect as per your previous posts you are probably right on this - possibly there was indeed no way we could have done this at short notice. But if true it would be good to know what the logjams were so we can know whether we have sorted them out.

If it subsequently turns out that in the near future that we copy France and instigate some kind of foreign travel testing / quarantine (similar to how we seem to be belatedly swapping to test-track-trace) then would you not like to know what the recommendations are for this?

Finally we have all been using the word because Vallance did in committee, but I would be surprised if SAGE had actually used the word "draconian" in their recommendations as it is a clear value judgement! If they did then again I would like to know.

[petejh]

Ali and Nige, woah there, I was offering the most likely interpretation of what 'very draconian measures' might mean when you consider the context that the CSO made the statement - bear in mind he also said that anything other than a complete travel ban would be ineffective at stopping transmission, and even that would likely be pointless. It doesn't take the brains of Britain or a SAGE member to join the dots here..

The CSO is on record in early March as saying a travel ban was pointless and wouldn't work. (because covid was already in the population and spreading).

So Ali, please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting 'very draconian' might mean 'just temperature checks of arriving passengers' or other similar half-measures. Look at the WHO's advice on such measures also, when considering decisions made at the time.

Nigel and Ali if you're going to use hindsight to try to pick apart decisions then you must look at the context in which decisions were made. Your tone comes across to me as wishing to 'ascribe blame' as per the Spiegelhalter article.

What the WHO were (still are) saying at the time is freely available to view.
The WHO has consistently issued advice against banning international travel saying it won't work except in limited country-specific circumstances (which hints at why NZ's travel ban was effective - i.e. limited international connections):

Jan 20th

WHO advises against the application of any restrictions of international traffic based on the information currently available on this event.

[/b]

Feb 29th

Feb 29th: 'WHO continues to advise against the application of travel or trade restrictions to countries experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks.

In general, evidence shows that restricting the movement of people and goods during public health emergencies is ineffective in most situations and may divert resources from other interventions. Furthermore, restrictions may interrupt needed aid and technical support, may disrupt businesses, and may have negative social and economic effects on the affected countries. However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities.

Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact. Since WHO declaration of a public health emergency of international concern in relation to COVID-19, and as of 27 February, 38 countries have reported to WHO additional health measures that significantly interfere with international traffic in relation to travel to and from China or other countries, ranging from denial of entry of passengers, visa restrictions or quarantine for returning travellers. Several countries that denied entry of travellers or who have suspended the flights to and from China or other affected countries, are now reporting cases of COVID-19.

[/b]


On temperature screening:

20th Jan:

The evidence from the past outbreaks shows that effectiveness of entry screening is uncertain, but it may support risk communication strategy by providing information to travellers from affected countries/areas to reduce the general risk of acute respiratory infections, and to seek medical attention early if they develop symptoms compatible with the infection.
During the current outbreak with the novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV, a number of exported cases were detected through entry screening implemented by some countries. Symptomatic cases may be detected through temperature screening at Point of Entry, for whom medical examination and laboratory tests will be conducted for confirmation. Temperature screening to detect potential suspect cases at Point of Entry may miss travellers incubating the disease or travellers concealing fever during travel and may require substantial investments. A focused approach targeting direct flights from affected areas could be more effective and less resource demanding.
Currently the northern hemisphere (and China) is in the midst of the winter season when Influenza and other respiratory infections are prevalent. When deciding implementation of entry screening, countries need to take into consideration that travellers with signs and symptoms suggestive of respiratory infection may result from respiratory diseases other than 2019-nCoV, and that their follow-up may impose an additional burden on the health system. National policy and capacities should be taken into account during the decision-making process.

29th Feb:

Temperature screening alone, at exit or entry, is not an effective way to stop international spread, since infected individuals may be in incubation period, may not express apparent symptoms early on in the course of the disease, or may dissimulate fever through the use of antipyretics; in addition, such measures require substantial investments for what may bear little benefits. It is more effective to provide prevention recommendation messages to travellers and to collect health declarations at arrival, with travellers’ contact details, to allow for a proper risk assessment and a possible contact tracing of incoming travellers.

[Nigel]

Ali and Nige, woah there, I was offering the most likely interpretation of what 'very draconian measures' might mean....

You might well be! Though if we actually knew what they were then we wouldn't have to guess.

The CSO is on record in early March as saying a travel ban was pointless and wouldn't work. (because covid was already in the population and spreading)

Ok fine, but then in mid-march most other countries worldwide instigated some kind of border control (I linked earlier, but on phone now so struggling to bring forward). There's a clear difference in approach there for which an explanation would be nice.

In light of that it looks like we were one of the only countries following the WHO recommendations you provided. Did something in their recommendations change in mid-march? Your links are up to late feb. Genuine question as am on phone and signal is poor so hard to check.

[petejh]

No the guidance didn’t change, what I posted is the current WHO advice on international travel restrictions if you go on their website today. Same as feb 29th.

Other countries may have done. But they weren’t ‘following the science’!
Sucks to be a government hey, damned either way.