Old Skier
Tour Winner
Who knows, the same as you I or anyone else has any evidence that anyone else is counting accurately or even the same way.
Life's a mystery
Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...
- Thread starter AmandaJR
- Start date
- Status
Life's a mystery
Old Skier
Tour Winner
Interested to know what you base that on
Hacker Khan
Yurt Dwelling, Yoghurt Knitter
I'm just going by the official figures from each country that is telling me we have the 2nd worst death toll now after the US and we have missed the testing target for the 4th day now. And whilst I know that the numbers are not all calculated the same, I can't help thinking up to yet the government are not covering themselves in glory.
I'm sure Boris will have some excuses ready as he seems that type of person, and I am sure some will lap those up as a get out of jail free for him and the government. But in a global pandemic where results are measured quite harshly in deaths, if it was a league table we currently seem to be staring relegation in the face.
D
Deleted member 1740
Guest
Yes but the capability is there ?
Dont be bringing your “party politics” here, strategies changed ?
D
Deleted member 1740
Guest
You need to be more specific.
The looney leftie news?The left bias BBC?or that Left rag The times/Sunday times ?
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
The problem is that the numbers for each country aren't counted in the same way BUT the government were the ones that started using the graphs for total deaths to compare us with other countries. Now people are using those same graphs to hang the government out to dry. It's going to be many months (or even years) before all of the information is available to be able to make comparisons with other countries. The true measure of success/failure can only be based on excess deaths for this year compared to previous years. And even then it will be an analysis as to whether the UK with X thousand excess deaths is better or worse than Germany (or any other country) with Y thousand excess deaths.
When it comes to the "league table" it's a bit like looking at the PL table where one team has played 25 matches and comparing that to a team who are 4 points behind but have played three games less. If it's a team at the top of the table then they might make up those points. If it's a team at the bottom of the table then they are less likely to make up those points. Until we, and all other countries, get through this situation comparisons on how each country are dealing with it are futile.
bluewolf
Money List Winner
We appear to be arguing about goal difference, whilst ignoring the fact that we’re in the relegation places.
Whatever the reason, we’re performing really, really poorly. And we appear to be discussing our relative position, rather than our actual performance.
Who gives a flying monkey whether we’re the worst or the 4th worst (or the 6th worst even). We should be ashamed that we’re not arguing about why we’re not the best. British exceptionalism once again to the fore.....
Whatever the reason, we’re performing really, really poorly. And we appear to be discussing our relative position, rather than our actual performance.
Who gives a flying monkey whether we’re the worst or the 4th worst (or the 6th worst even). We should be ashamed that we’re not arguing about why we’re not the best. British exceptionalism once again to the fore.....
funkycoldmedina
Newbie
From the horses mouth
drdel
Tour Rookie
Based upon population the UK is about the same as others and behind Spain. Just as based upon totals the USA is highest but it has millions more people than individual EU nations. Unless you normalise the data it tells us the sum total of nothing!
We need to focus on each other and do whatever we can to control our own lives and reduce cross infection?
We need to focus on each other and do whatever we can to control our own lives and reduce cross infection?
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
But are we? As I mentioned in my previous post, until we get the definitive numbers then we can't make any comparisons. It could turn out that we are in the "relegation places" but until we reach a point where the recorded stats are the same between different countries then we can't know that.
You're arguing about whether we're the "4th worst" or the "6th worst" or whatever but until the final figures are known then we won't know if that is correct or whether we were indeed one of the top 4 or top 6.
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
That's the point though, they don't need to keep All on board do they, just a majority. By their compliance, their actions and conduct that majority will tow along most of the minority and they'll be on board with the strategy too, leaving just... well folks like you as a vocal minority (& that's not a criticism)
Call it spin, propaganda, marketing or simply hoopla. No PM, Politician or Government is going to give up that tool regardless of the seriousness of the matter at hand (even during World Wars it was used)
We are in serious doodoo with this virus... but it is not the most serious issue the UK has ever faced in modern times, but you expect it to be treated as such
rudebhoy
Q-School Graduate
BBC reporting this morning that the "Stay At Home" instruction is set to be scrapped. Are we "following the science" or bowing to lockdown fatigue?
It was also reported that the Turkish PPE which the government made great play of having secured, has failed safety tests and the entire consignment of 400,000 gowns is unusable.
It was also reported that the Turkish PPE which the government made great play of having secured, has failed safety tests and the entire consignment of 400,000 gowns is unusable.
pendodave
Tour Rookie
The thing is, there's more than one way of looking at the science. This article on the BBC makes a perfectly legitimate case for changing our current strategy. Apologies that there's not enough political content, but by the time I look again there probably will be...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52543692
rudebhoy
Q-School Graduate
Yes, my "following the science" was an attempt at irony. Vallance was interviewed the other day and said that SAGE have never presented the cabinet with a single recommendation, instead they present a series of options with likely outcomes, and the politicians choose which one they like best. And then cover their back by saying they are "following the science".
Going back to easing the lockdown, it just feels like BJ has decided to gamble. Let's just hope it doesn't result in a second spike.
pendodave
Tour Rookie
Apologies, its early and I've stopped watching the briefings so had no context.
Re. The second spike, what I take from the article is that providing the easily identifiable vulnerable are removed from the firing line the rest of us have more chance of dieing from a stroke bought on by the stress of reading forum political threads...
rudebhoy
Q-School Graduate
The gist of that article seems to be we should let everyone under 65 out unless they have underlying health issues, but anyone over 65 should stay at home. Thats good news for us "younger" golfers
drdel
Tour Rookie
What else do you expect of a scientific advisory body and a democratically elected government.
It's exactly how it should work?
rudebhoy
Q-School Graduate
I have no problem with SAGE presenting the govt with a range of options, and their likely outcomes.
However the next step of choosing which option to take is a political decision.
Which again is fine, however what I have a problem with is govt ministers repeatedly saying "we are following the science" when in fact they are making political decisions based on a number of options presented by the scientists.
'Following the science" implies there is only one possible course of action, and gives the govt a get-out if it goes wrong - blame bad scientific advice.
The article below is worth a read
Scientists criticise UK government's 'following the science' claim
Ministers accused of abdicating political duty to narrow field of opaque expertise on Covid-19
Experts have voiced growing frustration over the UK government’s claim that it is “following the science”, saying the refrain is being used to abdicate responsibility for political decisions.
They also raised concerns that the views of public health experts were being overlooked, with disproportionate weight given to the views of modellers.
“As a scientist, I hope I never again hear the phrase ‘based on the best science and evidence’ spoken by a politician,” Prof Devi Sridhar, chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, told the Guardian. “This phrase has become basically meaningless and used to explain anything and everything.”
The government has repeatedly said it is being “led by the science” on decisions ranging from banning mass gatherings to closing schools, the use of face masks and, most recently, the prospects of lifting the lockdown.
However, Sridhar and others argued that scientific views on these topics could be wide-ranging and dependent on a scientist’s field of expertise.
The diversity of scientific views was apparent in March when case numbers were rising rapidly but the government chose not to ban mass gatherings or introduce wide-reaching physical distancing.
“World Health Organization advice, and what we’ve learned from lots of previous outbreaks in low- and middle-income countries, is that the faster you move at the start, the better, because it’s exponential growth,” Sridhar said. “In public health, a test, trace and isolate campaign would’ve been where your mind first went.”
Instead, she said, the government appeared to be basing policy on the presumption of a binary choice between two scenarios, played out in computer models, of either eradicating the virus or it becoming endemic.
Prof Mark Woolhouse, an infectious diseases epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh, said modelling had had a disproportionate influence. “I do think scientific advice is driven far too much by epidemiology – and I’m an epidemiologist.
“What we’re not talking about in the same formal, quantitative way are the economic costs, the social costs, the psychological costs of being under lockdown,” he said. “I understand that the government is being advised by economists, psychiatrists and others, but we’re not seeing what that science is telling them. I find that very puzzling.”
Woolhouse said that while it was understandable that saving lives was the top priority, the idea of doing this at any cost was naive.
“With any disease there is a trade-off. Public health is largely about that trade-off. What’s happening here is that both sides of the equation are so enormous and so damaging that the routine public health challenge of balancing costs and benefits is thrown into incredibly stark relief. Yet that balance has to be found.”
Others expressed concern about the lack of transparency around the evidence affecting decision-making. “We don’t know who sits on Sage [the government’s scientific advisory group for emergencies], we see very little of the papers that go to Sage,” said Prof Sheila Bird, the former programme leader of the Medical Research Council’s biostatistics unit at the University of Cambridge. “That scientific underpinning is not evident.”
Sridhar said the failure to fully consider the perspectives of experts beyond epidemiology may have contributed to misguided decisions. Models appear not to have factored in the role of hospital staff shortages, which may have diverted attention from the urgent need for adequate personal protective equipment, she said.
The concept of shielding the most vulnerable “looks beautiful” in models, she said, but in reality care homes are facing major outbreaks and multigenerational households are struggling to isolate the vulnerable. “You can’t take these people out of the system and isolate them as if they were a data point on a graph,” she said.
“There’s a real problem if you have a collection of people from the same background, the same field, the same institutions; that can lead to blindspots and groupthink,” Sridhar added. “Diversity is clearly important for better decision-making.”
Some fear the prominence given to science in supporting political decisions risks burdening scientists with unrealistic expectations and could ultimately erode trust in their expertise.
“The government isn’t using expertise simply to validate claims, it also appears to be using it as an insurance policy,” Prof Christina Boswell, a political scientist at the University of Edinburgh, wrote this week. “If things go wrong – and the curve gets too steep – it will be the scientific advice that is to blame.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cise-uk-government-over-following-the-science
Swinglowandslow
Well-known member
Would you like to clearly nail your colours to the mast and tell us which strategy you want to see.
The lockdown to continue as it is. Or,
An easing of the lockdown, which you are inferring is a gamble, I.e. Recklessness by the government.
It is something of a gamble, but that is because of the nature of the virus and not knowing exactly how the populace will behave.
We have only heard speculation as to the form of easing. Whenever it comes it will come with caveats. I suspect there won't be a burning of bridges,
And most importantly, there will be a plea for the behaviour of people to stick within the easement guidelines.
When the last thing doesn't happen, I will blame the selfish idiots who refuse to think of others.
Who will you blame , I wonder?
Hacker Khan
Yurt Dwelling, Yoghurt Knitter
Interesting read. Unless you are over 65 I suppose.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52543692
- Status
Similar threads
