What Sage Really think.

[Kite159]

If they had had their way we would have had a continious last March style lockdown ever since then.

Probably even harsher than the March style if some of the scientists got their way (no doubt more restrictions on exercise citing a time/distance limit in law, or "you must use your nearest shop for essentials"

 

[Cdd89]

So this morning John Edmunds who is on SAGE has said in the media that the end of February is too early to lift restrictions.

This clip from Channel 4 was very memorable at the time. Edmunds correctly stated that herd immunity was the only way to end the epidemic and restrictions on people needed to be limited in scope and duration.

His opposing number (Pueyo) pretty much called him a mass murderer and spread panic, it is perhaps not surprising that he has changed his view. Indeed I expect that interview was key in “Herd Immunity” becoming such a poisonous term

 

[bramling]

Advisors advise, ministers decide. You are falling hook line and sinker for the trap the politicians have set you. The problem is not the advisors being accountable or not. The problem is the government ministers in the cabinet (particularly the PM) who have tied themselves to letter of what one particular set of advisors are saying in an attempt to shield themselves from accountability. It is not the job of advisors to present a balanced approach. It is the job of ministers to provide advise in their specific area of expertise. It is then up to the politicians to weigh this advise against similarly unbalanced advice from other advisors about other aspects of government and society. Then crucially make the decisions no pass the buck at every opportunity.

This is an excellent post. The policy of “follow the science” essentially allows weak and uninitiated politicians to shield themselves from accountability. They wanted the jobs, and with that comes accountability and responsibility. I suspect this is part of the reason why it is heavily rumoured that Johnson wants out as soon as he can get away with it.

Going forward, as a population we need to start rejecting the current crop of lightweight career politicians, and instead look to choose people who have accomplished real-life backgrounds. Thatcher’s science background is a case in point. By contrast Johnson seems to have achieved little in life apart from making people laugh - there’s occupations for that!

 

[21C101]

Sweden who haven't locked down have an all cause mortality for 2020 that unexceptional compared with recent years.

There is no evidence of correlation between extent of a countries lockdown and other measures and cases /fatalities and in the UK the previous sensible advice to wash hands, avoid unnecessary contact and shield if you are vulnedable had already caused infections to peak and be falling by the time the lockdown was imposed in March.

King Canute will no doub't be telling everyone he comes across in heaven "I told you so, I told you so"

Lockdown is a once in a generation "nuclear option" that wasn was deployed far too soon and far too casually.

If we hadn't gone over the top back in March, locking down after infections had peaked and coming into spring when all virus transmission starts to fall...

....then we would have had the money for a full lockdown now, including construction etc. at a time when we have a much more potent mutation on the loose, mid winter with worst body immununity and midwinter weather facilitating longest virus duration on surfaces, plus the ability to have a limited, finite and forecastable lockdown duration due to the vaccination programme under way.

Plus, if we hadn't been in various stages of lockdown since March we would now have far greater levels of compliance as lockdown fatigue would not have set in.

The equivalent would be if during world War 2 the USA had destroyed Okinawa with the two atomic bombs instead of invading it, many soldiers lives would have been saved.

But that would not have caused Japan's surrender and with the weapons now used (and no more available for months), there would have been no choice other than to invade mainland Japan; which, overall, would have cost many, many more lives.

Going forward, as a population we need to start rejecting the current crop of lightweight career politicians, and instead look to choose people who have accomplished real-life backgrounds. Thatcher’s science background is a case in point. By contrast Johnson seems to have achieved little in life apart from making people laugh - there’s occupations for that!

At risk of derailing the thread, I think one reason for the lightweight crop of politicians is the treaties that drained power away from pariament to the other side of the channel in recent decades.

With parliament only having a rubber stamp role in many great matters this put off capable people from standing and allowed time for jumped up county councillors to persue hobby horses.

That has ended now and much of parliaments time is now again taken up with important (but boring and too complicated to the jumped up county councillors) great matters of state on which life changing decisions need to be made. I hope with this repatriation of power capable people will again be attracted to exercise it.

 

[yorkie]

This clip from Channel 4 was very memorable at the time. Edmunds correctly stated that herd immunity was the only way to end the epidemic and restrictions on people needed to be limited in scope and duration.

His opposing number (Pueyo) pretty much called him a mass murderer and spread panic, it is perhaps not surprising that he has changed his view. Indeed I expect that interview was key in “Herd Immunity” becoming such a poisonous term

The main (and perhaps only?) thing Edmunds changed his mind on is that he says we should have locked down earlier but this proves he wasn't saying that at the time

Both of them were saying the epidemic would last about a year (with the measures they were advocating; clearly Pueyo was very wide of the mark) and both admitted herd immunity was the way out of this.

The difference is that Pueyo wanted an earlier lockdown and harsher measures to spread cases over a long time (without a vaccine that could be something crazy like 5 to 10 years so his strategy is 100% reliant on a vaccine, for which we have got lucky) and Edmunds thought that the public would not tolerate measures for longer than necessary and therefore we should spread it out at higher levels to avoid prolonging it too much.

So I think Edmunds was a lot more realistic, especially bearing in mind that at the time we did not know if a vaccine would be possible let alone when.

It's a long video but if anyone is short for time I'd watch (or just listen!) from 04:30 until 09:30. Note that Pueyo nods his head in agreement at 09:10. So there isn't as much disagreement between them as one might think.

 

[kristiang85]

One should bear in mind that Pueyo runs an online learning tech company, which has - unsurprisingly - been doing very well during the restrictions. I would take what he says with a pinch of salt over an epidemiologist, especially when he's being very pro-lockdown.

John was quite right on many things at the beginning, but has gone down SAGE's route since. I guess SAGE members have been 'encouraged' to have a unified view in the media.

 

[43096]

I guess SAGE members have been 'encouraged' to have a unified view in the media.

Ah, that’ll be “Group think”. Much like the media, no deviation from the view of the thought police is permitted.