COVID19

[Banquo]

Good to see such agreement on this issue

I don't necessarily agree with your diagnosis, but I certainly agree on accountability; all of SAGE, NHSE and PHE are agents of government, and as such their 'creations'.

The government is fully responsible. I agree.

I prefer accountable, but that's a tad semantic.

[Digby]

We will not get through this without semantics

[Eugene Wrayburn]

SAGE is wholly appointed by the government isn't it? In which case the absence of any relevant expertise is a bit of a schoolboy error on their part.

I think largely the problem has been that the government has ignored scientific advice or changed aspects of it without asking how that might affect things. For example there were reports that HMG sent 3 possible models for opening schools to SAGE and asked them to model the results. They got that but went for the unmodeled camel that we currently have

[Banquo]

SAGE is wholly appointed by the government isn't it? In which case the absence of any relevant expertise is a bit of a schoolboy error on their part.

I think largely the problem has been that the government has ignored scientific advice or changed aspects of it without asking how that might affect things. For example there were reports that HMG sent 3 possible models for opening schools to SAGE and asked them to model the results. They got that but went for the unmodeled camel that we currently have

Yep, as per my previous point. That said, looking at the SAGE membership for Covid 19, which is published now, I don't think a lack of (apparent) expertise is the issue though- plenty of all the right sounding officials, scientists, acedemics. To your point, slightly, I don't think anyone knew what the right questions to ask were (ie if we do x, what would happen)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... sub-groups

I've just read the minutes of the 13th March meeting- its an eye opener for me, in that there is zero sense of anything being about to go horribly wrong.

I did read a quote saying an expert is only as good as the question they are asked- I guess you'd definitely have a view on that?

[Sandydragon]

SAGE is wholly appointed by the government isn't it? In which case the absence of any relevant expertise is a bit of a schoolboy error on their part.

I think largely the problem has been that the government has ignored scientific advice or changed aspects of it without asking how that might affect things. For example there were reports that HMG sent 3 possible models for opening schools to SAGE and asked them to model the results. They got that but went for the unmodeled camel that we currently have

Yep, as per my previous point. That said, looking at the SAGE membership for Covid 19, which is published now, I don't think a lack of (apparent) expertise is the issue though- plenty of all the right sounding officials, scientists, acedemics. To your point, slightly, I don't think anyone knew what the right questions to ask were (ie if we do x, what would happen)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... sub-groups

I've just read the minutes of the 13th March meeting- its an eye opener for me, in that there is zero sense of anything being about to go horribly wrong.

I did read a quote saying an expert is only as good as the question they are asked- I guess you'd definitely have a view on that?

Do you have a link for those minutes?

This still feels a lot like the politicians and scientists were expecting a version of the flu and modelled against that. Despite a long list of scientists on board, Its odd that we were so out of step with other countries (except Sweden) initially in our response. It would be enlightening to know what international discussion was occurring at this time.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

SAGE is wholly appointed by the government isn't it? In which case the absence of any relevant expertise is a bit of a schoolboy error on their part.

I think largely the problem has been that the government has ignored scientific advice or changed aspects of it without asking how that might affect things. For example there were reports that HMG sent 3 possible models for opening schools to SAGE and asked them to model the results. They got that but went for the unmodeled camel that we currently have

Yep, as per my previous point. That said, looking at the SAGE membership for Covid 19, which is published now, I don't think a lack of (apparent) expertise is the issue though- plenty of all the right sounding officials, scientists, acedemics. To your point, slightly, I don't think anyone knew what the right questions to ask were (ie if we do x, what would happen)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... sub-groups

I've just read the minutes of the 13th March meeting- its an eye opener for me, in that there is zero sense of anything being about to go horribly wrong.

I did read a quote saying an expert is only as good as the question they are asked- I guess you'd definitely have a view on that?

I've spent a career dealing with experts, particularly scientific ones and it's absolutely true. A while ago I was lamenting the absence of scientists amongst the government because they just wouldn't have a clue.

The problem with scientists is that all too often they don't understand what normal people don't know - which tends to be almost everything. The key is getting them to explain in words of one syllable and not being in awe of either jargon or brilliance. The great joy of science is that it can almost always be broken down into simple things and if you ask the right questions the scientists are very helpful. In this case it just needed "what did South Korea get right that Italy got wrong" or "why didn't the south koreans do what we're planning to do".

[Son of Mathonwy]

I don't necessarily agree with your diagnosis, but I certainly agree on accountability; all of SAGE, NHSE and PHE are agents of government, and as such their 'creations'.

The government is fully responsible. I agree.

I prefer accountable, but that's a tad semantic.

Ah, let's not get hung up on semantics when I'm trying so hard to agree with you.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The UK went ahead of Spain in the per capita deaths today, based on the (underestimated) official deaths. So, ignoring tiny San Marino and Andorra, there's only Belgium ahead of us.

In the rolling 7-day average deaths, Sweden leads, then Brazil, then UK, then Peru ... all jostling for position.

[Sandydragon]

Interesting.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.c ... 5a9ef8061f

[Sandydragon]

The UK went ahead of Spain in the per capita deaths today, based on the (underestimated) official deaths. So, ignoring tiny San Marino and Andorra, there's only Belgium ahead of us.

In the rolling 7-day average deaths, Sweden leads, then Brazil, then UK, then Peru ... all jostling for position.

I Notice that the usual suspects on the Times comments section have finally shut up about how we should be following Sweden.

[Galfon]

UK also slipping down the sdra table (totals, to 2 jun) - US, UK, Swe on downward trends.
Ind set to overtake us soon.

1. US 1014
2. Bra 955
3. Mex 358
4. UK 285
5. Ind 204
6. Rus 165

(Swe 49)

Meanwhile Cabinet minister Sharma (52) taken unwell and off to get tested - it does beg the question..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52910303

[Banquo]

SAGE is wholly appointed by the government isn't it? In which case the absence of any relevant expertise is a bit of a schoolboy error on their part.

I think largely the problem has been that the government has ignored scientific advice or changed aspects of it without asking how that might affect things. For example there were reports that HMG sent 3 possible models for opening schools to SAGE and asked them to model the results. They got that but went for the unmodeled camel that we currently have

Yep, as per my previous point. That said, looking at the SAGE membership for Covid 19, which is published now, I don't think a lack of (apparent) expertise is the issue though- plenty of all the right sounding officials, scientists, acedemics. To your point, slightly, I don't think anyone knew what the right questions to ask were (ie if we do x, what would happen)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... sub-groups

I've just read the minutes of the 13th March meeting- its an eye opener for me, in that there is zero sense of anything being about to go horribly wrong.

I did read a quote saying an expert is only as good as the question they are asked- I guess you'd definitely have a view on that?

Do you have a link for those minutes?

This still feels a lot like the politicians and scientists were expecting a version of the flu and modelled against that. Despite a long list of scientists on board, Its odd that we were so out of step with other countries (except Sweden) initially in our response. It would be enlightening to know what international discussion was occurring at this time.

Its linked from that site


but here you go
https://www.gov.uk/search/transparency- ... mergencies

[Digby]

Just heard a nice description of the UK track and trace system, it's up but not running

[Banquo]

SAGE is wholly appointed by the government isn't it? In which case the absence of any relevant expertise is a bit of a schoolboy error on their part.

I think largely the problem has been that the government has ignored scientific advice or changed aspects of it without asking how that might affect things. For example there were reports that HMG sent 3 possible models for opening schools to SAGE and asked them to model the results. They got that but went for the unmodeled camel that we currently have

Yep, as per my previous point. That said, looking at the SAGE membership for Covid 19, which is published now, I don't think a lack of (apparent) expertise is the issue though- plenty of all the right sounding officials, scientists, acedemics. To your point, slightly, I don't think anyone knew what the right questions to ask were (ie if we do x, what would happen)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... sub-groups

I've just read the minutes of the 13th March meeting- its an eye opener for me, in that there is zero sense of anything being about to go horribly wrong.

I did read a quote saying an expert is only as good as the question they are asked- I guess you'd definitely have a view on that?

I've spent a career dealing with experts, particularly scientific ones and it's absolutely true. A while ago I was lamenting the absence of scientists amongst the government because they just wouldn't have a clue.

The problem with scientists is that all too often they don't understand what normal people don't know - which tends to be almost everything. The key is getting them to explain in words of one syllable and not being in awe of either jargon or brilliance. The great joy of science is that it can almost always be broken down into simple things and if you ask the right questions the scientists are very helpful. In this case it just needed "what did South Korea get right that Italy got wrong" or "why didn't the south koreans do what we're planning to do".

That's what I'd figured from your background. There was an article speculating that one of the reasons Germany had been relatively successful, was that Angela Merkel has a strong scientific background (vs Bojo's classics degree); there may be summat in that. My Chemistry degree might have served him better

[Banquo]

The government is fully responsible. I agree.

I prefer accountable, but that's a tad semantic.

Ah, let's not get hung up on semantics when I'm trying so hard to agree with you.

(accountable and responsible do mean different things to me, to be clear, but maybe not to others)

[Sandydragon]

Yep, as per my previous point. That said, looking at the SAGE membership for Covid 19, which is published now, I don't think a lack of (apparent) expertise is the issue though- plenty of all the right sounding officials, scientists, acedemics. To your point, slightly, I don't think anyone knew what the right questions to ask were (ie if we do x, what would happen)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... sub-groups

I've just read the minutes of the 13th March meeting- its an eye opener for me, in that there is zero sense of anything being about to go horribly wrong.

I did read a quote saying an expert is only as good as the question they are asked- I guess you'd definitely have a view on that?

I've spent a career dealing with experts, particularly scientific ones and it's absolutely true. A while ago I was lamenting the absence of scientists amongst the government because they just wouldn't have a clue.

The problem with scientists is that all too often they don't understand what normal people don't know - which tends to be almost everything. The key is getting them to explain in words of one syllable and not being in awe of either jargon or brilliance. The great joy of science is that it can almost always be broken down into simple things and if you ask the right questions the scientists are very helpful. In this case it just needed "what did South Korea get right that Italy got wrong" or "why didn't the south koreans do what we're planning to do".

That's what I'd figured from your background. There was an article speculating that one of the reasons Germany had been relatively successful, was that Angela Merkel has a strong scientific background (vs Bojo's classics degree); there may be summat in that. My Chemistry degree might have served him better

BoJos liberalism (allegedly) is a major contributor in the decision making process - he doesn't like a big state bossing citizens around. Even when its obvious it has to.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I prefer accountable, but that's a tad semantic.

Ah, let's not get hung up on semantics when I'm trying so hard to agree with you.

(accountable and responsible do mean different things to me, to be clear, but maybe not to others)

Okay, spell it out then.

[Son of Mathonwy]

UK also slipping down the sdra table (totals, to 2 jun) - US, UK, Swe on downward trends.
Ind set to overtake us soon.

1. US 1014
2. Bra 955
3. Mex 358
4. UK 285
5. Ind 204
6. Rus 165

(Swe 49)

What's sdra?

[fivepointer]

I've spent a career dealing with experts, particularly scientific ones and it's absolutely true. A while ago I was lamenting the absence of scientists amongst the government because they just wouldn't have a clue.

The problem with scientists is that all too often they don't understand what normal people don't know - which tends to be almost everything. The key is getting them to explain in words of one syllable and not being in awe of either jargon or brilliance. The great joy of science is that it can almost always be broken down into simple things and if you ask the right questions the scientists are very helpful. In this case it just needed "what did South Korea get right that Italy got wrong" or "why didn't the south koreans do what we're planning to do".

That's what I'd figured from your background. There was an article speculating that one of the reasons Germany had been relatively successful, was that Angela Merkel has a strong scientific background (vs Bojo's classics degree); there may be summat in that. My Chemistry degree might have served him better

BoJos liberalism (allegedly) is a major contributor in the decision making process - he doesn't like a big state bossing citizens around. Even when its obvious it has to.

So much for following the science then.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The UK went ahead of Spain in the per capita deaths today, based on the (underestimated) official deaths. So, ignoring tiny San Marino and Andorra, there's only Belgium ahead of us.

In the rolling 7-day average deaths, Sweden leads, then Brazil, then UK, then Peru ... all jostling for position.

I Notice that the usual suspects on the Times comments section have finally shut up about how we should be following Sweden.

When even Tegnell admits their approach wasn't strict enough, it becomes difficult to recommend that approach:

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/man ... 54z99.html

Of course, for most people the massively higher death toll than their neighbours would be a clear enough sign of a flawed strategy.

And Sweden now has a higher per capita death total than France. Quite remarkable considering France's total was 3 times Sweden's a couple of months back.

[Banquo]

Ah, let's not get hung up on semantics when I'm trying so hard to agree with you.

(accountable and responsible do mean different things to me, to be clear, but maybe not to others)

Okay, spell it out then.

You are a demanding fella aren't you? . For me, simply, responsibility can be shared in terms of achieving/executing 'tasks' (e.g. SAGE, PHE, NHSE, DOH, Govt), but accountability cannot eg Govt.

So from a programmatic viewpoint- Responsibility focuses on defined stuff that must be in place to achieve a goal. Accountability is tied to the successful completion of overall goals and taking responsibility for everything that happens as a result of the actions that were taken. Ultimately you need a single place to point the finger at, and that's accountability. Any further quibbles, ask someone else!

[Banquo]

That's what I'd figured from your background. There was an article speculating that one of the reasons Germany had been relatively successful, was that Angela Merkel has a strong scientific background (vs Bojo's classics degree); there may be summat in that. My Chemistry degree might have served him better

BoJos liberalism (allegedly) is a major contributor in the decision making process - he doesn't like a big state bossing citizens around. Even when its obvious it has to.

So much for following the science then.

Its worth reading the minutes, I can't yet tell who was deciding what.

[Galfon]

What's sdra?

7-day rollin' avg..

[Stom]

I've spent a career dealing with experts, particularly scientific ones and it's absolutely true. A while ago I was lamenting the absence of scientists amongst the government because they just wouldn't have a clue.

The problem with scientists is that all too often they don't understand what normal people don't know - which tends to be almost everything. The key is getting them to explain in words of one syllable and not being in awe of either jargon or brilliance. The great joy of science is that it can almost always be broken down into simple things and if you ask the right questions the scientists are very helpful. In this case it just needed "what did South Korea get right that Italy got wrong" or "why didn't the south koreans do what we're planning to do".

That's what I'd figured from your background. There was an article speculating that one of the reasons Germany had been relatively successful, was that Angela Merkel has a strong scientific background (vs Bojo's classics degree); there may be summat in that. My Chemistry degree might have served him better

BoJos liberalism (allegedly) is a major contributor in the decision making process - he doesn't like a big state bossing citizens around. Even when its obvious it has to.

By liberalism you mean libertarianism, right?

[Sandydragon]

Why is the UK coronavirus death rate so stubbornly high?
Chris Smyth
Whitehall Editor
Thursday June 04 2020, 12.00pm, The Times
International comparisons of deaths are fraught with difficulty and the true picture may not be known for a year or more. This is both a statistical truth and a convenient political defence. Spain, for example, seems to be excluding quite a lot from its daily death figures and Britain arguably looks artificially worse for being more comprehensive about data.

Yet it is pretty unarguable that Britain has been among the world’s worst-hit countries so far. The reasons why are likely to occupy months of the public inquiry into the pandemic that is now all but inevitable. The theories span trends that have evolved over decades to decisions taken over hours and days. Anyone looking for a simple and clear explanation is likely to be disappointed.

As an open, global country with one of the world’s most visited cities, Britain was always likely to be vulnerable to a rapidly spreading infection, and London was badly hit early on. With obesity seemingly making infection more deadly, it may well be that our national weight problem has contributed significantly.

Compared with Germany and South Korea, widely cited as international exemplars, we were also unlucky in our pattern of transmission: the Korean outbreak was centred on a single church, making intensive contact tracing and containment much more feasible. Germany’s early cases were concentrated in younger people, making their outbreak much less deadly. By contrast, infections flooded into towns and cities across Britain late in February from Italy, Spain and elsewhere, making it much harder for health authorities to stay on top of them.

The relatively relaxed border controls at this time also illustrate the intense scrutiny being given to the interplay of political decision-making and scientific advice. This goes back many years: it may turn out that the single biggest failure was to plan properly for a pandemic that was not flu. Only last year preparation documents said that a new coronavirus would cause only “short-term localised disruption”, and little thought was given to the huge testing and tracing capacity that would be needed to control one.


Boris Johnson has spent weeks fighting off accusations that a focus on Brexit meant he did not take the pandemic seriously until March. While it is certainly true that for a long time the virus was seen by the government as primarily a health issue rather than something that would transform the whole of society, ministers were indeed following the scientific advice that the best way to manage the epidemic was to try to engineer a flattened peak in the summer rather than suppressing it completely.

The decision in mid-March to U-turn arguably meant Britain had had the worst of both worlds: the disadvantages of a lockdown without the gains of imposing one early. Yet privately scientists advising the government admit they did not model a lockdown much earlier because in February the idea of forcing everyone to stay at home by threat of criminal sanction was so outlandish that it did not occur to them.

Italy’s decision to impose a lockdown on March 9 changed that: as soon as lockdown stopped being inconceivable, it rapidly became inevitable. If a week is a long time in politics, it is even longer in an epidemic, and there is now acceptance among those scientists that acting slightly earlier could have saved thousands of lives.

Since then there is no doubt that inability to stamp out outbreaks in hospitals and care homes has not only cost lives, but delayed freedom for the rest of us. Infections spilling out of these places through frontline staff are now a key driver of cases in the rest of the country. Yet this is hardly unique to Britain: chaos in care homes has been a complaint in France, Sweden and elsewhere.

Other theories will no doubt emerge. The battle to establish where responsibility for any of them lies — and whether that responsibility extends to culpability — is likely to shape politics for years to come.