• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

New lockdown in England, including school closures, announced by Johnson, 4/1/21

Status
Not open for further replies.

philosopher

Established Member
Joined
23 Sep 2015
Messages
1,349
The figures were purely illustrative of what a 30-40% increase in the death rate would look like based on the rough death rate in people in their 60s last year. I don't think they're data from the study, and I don't think many people are going to make the mistake of thinking the death rate is going from 1% to 41%.
You would hope that most people realise a 30% increase from 1% is an increase from 1% to 1.3% rather than 31%. However given that many individuals grasp of maths is not that great I would not be surprised if many do think it is an increase to 31% or 41%.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,059
Interesting that they chose a '40% increase' for the paper, rather than 'increases from 1 to 1.4 %. Anyone would think there's some sort of agenda.
In the case of 20 year olds its an increase from about 0.001% to 0.0014%. I think their use of the 60s age group was relatively moderate tbh given that you expect them to say that in the over 90s it goes from 10% to 13%.

Much as appreciate that people might struggle with the concept of 30-40%, I really don't see how they could have accurately expressed it in a less confusing way
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,545
Location
UK
In the case of 20 year olds its an increase from about 0.001% to 0.0014%. I think their use of the 60s age group was relatively moderate tbh given that you expect them to say that in the over 90s it goes from 10% to 13%.

Much as appreciate that people might struggle with the concept of 30-40%, I really don't see how they could have accurately expressed it in a less confusing way
40 percent is a big and scary number though
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
In the case of 20 year olds its an increase from about 0.001% to 0.0014%. I think their use of the 60s age group was relatively moderate tbh given that you expect them to say that in the over 90s it goes from 10% to 13%.

Much as appreciate that people might struggle with the concept of 30-40%, I really don't see how they could have accurately expressed it in a less confusing way

Could have said something like "an increase from 1% to 1.4%", but that doesn't sound as scary as "a 40% increase".
 

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
3,675
Location
Sheffield
Lies, damned lies and statistics. You quote what you want to scare people, or get more clicks. I have quoted this example on the forum before but it is worth repeating:

Eating ‘burnt’ foods like crispy bacon and toast increases your chance of bowel cancer by 33%. This is a verified fact.

However, when you see that three in a thousand people get bowel cancer anyway, but four in a thousand who eat ‘burnt’ foods get it, that puts it more into perspective.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,059
Could have said something like "an increase from 1% to 1.4%", but that doesn't sound as scary as "a 40% increase".
But it isn't. It's more like an increase in risk from 0.3 to 0.4 on average. You don't expect them to actually make it clear how undeadly it really is do you?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,692
In the case of 20 year olds its an increase from about 0.001% to 0.0014%. I think their use of the 60s age group was relatively moderate tbh given that you expect them to say that in the over 90s it goes from 10% to 13%.

Except the over 90s are no longer available for fearmongering because the majority have already been vaccinated or will be in the next few weeks.
It had to be the 60 year olds to justify the lockdown remaining till May.
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,788
Except the over 90s are no longer available for fearmongering because the majority have already been vaccinated or will be in the next few weeks.
It had to be the 60 year olds to justify the lockdown remaining till May.
Is pretty much the correct answer. I'm not so sure about lockdown to May but selection of 60 year olds was certainly an attempt to quash any discussion of lifting lockdown once the over 70s have been vaccinated in mid-Feb.
 

Tracked

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,245
Location
53.5440°N 1.1510°W
But it isn't. It's more like an increase in risk from 0.3 to 0.4 on average. You don't expect them to actually make it clear how undeadly it really is do you?
The other thing I saw along with the the 30% increase in deaths (which appears to be based on 60-somethings, who're infected with the two different variants) was a 70% increase in transmission rates, bits I'd be curious to see:

1) What figures are used to get a 70% increase, given the 30% increase can be expressed in a less sensationalist way.
2) It says 10 or 13 deaths out of every 1,000 infected, but when you say "1,000 infected" how does that relate to the general population, ie; 1,000 Infected out of How Many? (given that 1,000 appears to have been used because the number of deaths shows a nice round figure)
3) A comparison with other age groups, the headlines say 30%, but the bit about the age this relates to is in the smaller print.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
You would hope that most people realise a 30% increase from 1% is an increase from 1% to 1.3% rather than 31%. However given that many individuals grasp of maths is not that great I would not be surprised if many do think it is an increase to 31% or 41%.

Yesterday's new conference was an example of blatant scaremongering, and it seems to have worked, if you look at today's newpaper headlines.

NEW VARIANT IS 30% MORE DEADLY !!!!! or words to that effect are on pretty much all of the front pages.

  • The first thing to say is that the fact that the new variant is 30% more deadly does not mean a 30% increase in deaths. This would only happen if 100% of all new cases from now on were of the new variant which is patently not true. Some simple maths shows that if 50% of cases were of the new variant, that translates to a 15% increase in deaths.
  • The second thing to say is that the number of cases of all variants is now starting to fall. The highest number of new cases per day was 81,524, and if 70% of them were of the old variant, that gives an expected 889 deaths. There were 40,261 cases reported yesterday, and if you assume that 70% of them are now of the new variant, that gives an expected 488 deaths. So the fact that the new variant is becoming more dominant does not lead to an increase in deaths.
  • The third and most important point is that the vaccine is effective against both strains of the virus. So whilst the percentage of deaths is 1% and 1.3% now for the old and new variants respectively, the vaccine will reduce those percentages over time, both in absolute and relative terms. So you could find, for example that in a couple of months time, the percentages are 0.75% and 0.9% for the old and new variants respectively, and that in six months time the mortality rate is 0.4% for both variants. These are just back of a fag packet calculations and no-one knows what the actual figures will be, but the important principle is that the vaccine will reduce the expected number of cases and deaths from all strains to a level which is manageable.
The other quite inexcusable piece of scaremongering was from Mattt Hancock yesterday was the statement that

"There is evidence in the public domain, although we are not sure of this data so I wouldn't say this in public, but that the South African variant reduces by about 50% the vaccine efficacy."
  • Firstly note the fact that he said "we are not sure of this data". Well until you are sure of the data, how do you know the efficacy is 50% lower?
  • Secondly he says by about 50%. That is a little vague isn't it? Could you show us that data you actually have at the moment, so that it can be peer reviewed by someone who knows what they are talking about? It is not implausible that Matt Hancock hasn't seen the data at all, and is just relying on what he has been told by the locktivists in SAGE, who are relying on the fact that he is as thick as two short planks when it comes to these matters.
  • Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, even if it were true that the South African variant reduces the efficacy of the vaccine by 50%, this is only against the current version of both the Oxford and Pfizer vaccines. The vaccine manufacturers have all said that their vaccines can be modified to cope with new variants, so that work should be going on right now, and in the meantime it is reasonable to take measures to reduce the prevalence of the South African variant by, eg. banning flights from South Africa and introducing a quarantine and testing regime.

Predictably the papers and new websites are full of headlines such as SCIENTISTS WARN AGAINST EARLY EASING OF LOCKDOWN this morning, which is the entire intent of yesterday's press conference.

But I think the government know the truth about the likely effects of all new variants on the figures, and if actual cases, hospitalisations and deaths come down to manageable levels, regardless of which variant they are, there is no case for maintaining the lockdown any longer.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,932
Location
Yorks
Yesterday's new conference was an example of blatant scaremongering, and it seems to have worked, if you look at today's newpaper headlines.

NEW VARIANT IS 30% MORE DEADLY !!!!! or words to that effect are on pretty much all of the front pages.

  • The first thing to say is that the fact that the new variant is 30% more deadly does not mean a 30% increase in deaths. This would only happen if 100% of all new cases from now on were of the new variant which is patently not true. Some simple maths shows that if 50% of cases were of the new variant, that translates to a 15% increase in deaths.
  • The second thing to say is that the number of cases of all variants is now starting to fall. The highest number of new cases per day was 81,524, and if 70% of them were of the old variant, that gives an expected 889 deaths. There were 40,261 cases reported yesterday, and if you assume that 70% of them are now of the new variant, that gives an expected 488 deaths. So the fact that the new variant is becoming more dominant does not lead to an increase in deaths.
  • The third and most important point is that the vaccine is effective against both strains of the virus. So whilst the percentage of deaths is 1% and 1.3% now for the old and new variants respectively, the vaccine will reduce those percentages over time, both in absolute and relative terms. So you could find, for example that in a couple of months time, the percentages are 0.75% and 0.9% for the old and new variants respectively, and that in six months time the mortality rate is 0.4% for both variants. These are just back of a fag packet calculations and no-one knows what the actual figures will be, but the important principle is that the vaccine will reduce the expected number of cases and deaths from all strains to a level which is manageable.
The other quite inexcusable piece of scaremongering was from Mattt Hancock yesterday was the statement that

"There is evidence in the public domain, although we are not sure of this data so I wouldn't say this in public, but that the South African variant reduces by about 50% the vaccine efficacy."
  • Firstly note the fact that he said "we are not sure of this data". Well until you are sure of the data, how do you know the efficacy is 50% lower?
  • Secondly he says by about 50%. That is a little vague isn't it? Could you show us that data you actually have at the moment, so that it can be peer reviewed by someone who knows what they are talking about? It is not implausible that Matt Hancock hasn't seen the data at all, and is just relying on what he has been told by the locktivists in SAGE, who are relying on the fact that he is as thick as two short planks when it comes to these matters.
  • Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, even if it were true that the South African variant reduces the efficacy of the vaccine by 50%, this is only against the current version of both the Oxford and Pfizer vaccines. The vaccine manufacturers have all said that their vaccines can be modified to cope with new variants, so that work should be going on right now, and in the meantime it is reasonable to take measures to reduce the prevalence of the South African variant by, eg. banning flights from South Africa and introducing a quarantine and testing regime.

Predictably the papers and new websites are full of headlines such as SCIENTISTS WARN AGAINST EARLY EASING OF LOCKDOWN this morning, which is the entire intent of yesterday's press conference.

But I think the government know the truth about the likely effects of all new variants on the figures, and if actual cases, hospitalisations and deaths come down to manageable levels, regardless of which variant they are, there is no case for maintaining the lockdown any longer.

Well, it wasn't long ago that they were waxing lyrical about how they felt they could contain the South African varient from spreading in the country, although this assurance came with little actual detail as to how this could be achieved.
 

Reliablebeam

Member
Joined
14 Jun 2017
Messages
247
I'm forced to the conclusion that the government is latching onto any tenuous scientific evidence that can be used to 'rebut' easing the lockdown. We've had Hancocks warning about vaccines, the REACT study and now this.

That REACT study was, in my view, an awful piece of scare mongering with a heroic fit to the data (would have been unacceptable in my field) and missing a huge block of data for December!

Edit: forgot to mention, BoJo's scaremongering about the Kentish covid has predictably caused international concern; another unintended consequence of him opening his mouth!
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
I'm forced to the conclusion that the government is latching onto any tenuous scientific evidence that can be used to 'rebut' easing the lockdown. We've had Hancocks warning about vaccines, the REACT study and now this.

That REACT study was, in my view, an awful piece of scare mongering with a heroic fit to the data (would have been unacceptable in my field) and missing a huge block of data for December!

Edit: forgot to mention, BoJo's scaremongering about the Kentish covid has predictably caused international concern; another unintended consequence of him opening his mouth!

I think the government are trying to put off easing the lockdown for now, but they know that they can't keep doing this forever.

The following stories show why:-


Rishi Sunak has told Tory MPs that coronavirus handouts "can't go on forever" as he considers a second budget in the autumn to raise taxes.

The Chancellor has begun rolling the pitch for revenue-raising measures but is understood to want to wait until later in the year when the economic outlook is clearer and the recovery in train before making many key decisions about taxes.

His March 3 budget is expected to focus on job creation and stimulating the economy, with a warning that the public finances must be put on a sustainable footing in the medium term.

A Government source said Mr Sunak is "under constant pressure from Number 10 to be sympathetic on a case-by-case basis [to those financially affected by coronavirus], but the problem is those cases grow all the time".

The source added: "But he's pretty resilient and he's pretty clear about what needs to happen because he knows the fundamental problem we've got if interest rates go up. At the moment people are saying 'we want this, we want that'. They point to tomorrow when asked when we're going to pay for it."

On Friday night, Boris Johnson was asked at a Number 10 press conference whether the Government would consider extending the furlough scheme, which pays up to 80 per cent of workers' wages, beyond its current expiry date in April if restrictions remain in place.

He said: "We will do whatever it takes to support the people of this country throughout this pandemic – support jobs, support livelihoods, as we have done throughout."


Mr Sunak has been laying the groundwork for higher taxes in calls with groups of Tory MPs, warning that demands for higher spending cannot be paid for by borrowing.

One Conservative MP said: "He's talked about what the big revenue-raising levers are without committing to any – corporation tax, VAT, national insurance and fuel tax, which he's pointed out has not been raised in 10 years." However, a source close to the Chancellor denied that he had framed the discussion around major revenue-raising measures in his phone calls with MPs.

Mr Johnson pledged to freeze income tax, VAT and national insurance in the 2019 Tory election manifesto, but last October Mr Sunak said it would be "tricky" to meet the tax promises.

Not all tax rises are expected to be put off until the autumn, when there is set to be a multi-year spending review, and beyond. At present, a corporation tax hike in the March budget is under consideration, it is understood.

Mr Sunak has told Treasury colleagues he wants the rate, which stands at 19 per cent, to remain competitive with rival economies, according to the Financial Times. The average headline rate among OECD countries is 23.5 per cent, allowing room for manoeuvre to raise the UK rate while remaining beneath that.

A second Conservative MP said the Treasury has signalled that it will use the March budget to "push cash into Kickstart [the Government scheme that funds employers to create job placements for 16 to 24-year-old benefit claimants] and getting new jobs out there in the economy”.

The MP added that Mr Sunak had been "very clear in setting out the public finance challenge" and had told backbenchers "handouts can't go on forever".


A Treasury source said no decision had yet been taken on a second autumn budget yet, adding: "We're facing huge uncertainty. It's still not clear what the shape of this spring budget will be." The Treasury declined to comment on tax matters ahead of the March budget.

It came as Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the "architect" of Universal Credit, called on Mr Sunak to extend the £20 weekly uplift to the benefit as he urged permanent improvements to the system. Sir Iain, a former Conservative leader and Work and Pensions Secretary, warned that the increase must be kept while the long-term impact of coronavirus on the economy remains uncertain.

Arguing that Universal Credit is the best mechanism for tackling poverty, he pointed to research showing that raising the generosity of the benefit and the work allowance is a "much more efficient way of improving the incomes of the poorest than raising the personal income tax allowance."

He has also made the case for lowering the current taper rate – which, at 63 per cent, deducts 63p from claimant's benefits for every £1 they earn over their work allowance – and disputed suggestions that an extension would cost £6 billion a year.

There is an ongoing debate in Cabinet over whether to extend the £6 billion a year uplift to more than six million claimants, who have seen their incomes boosted by £1,000 throughout the pandemic .

Therese Coffey, the Work and Pensions Secretary, and Mr Johnson have signalled a preference for it to be extended while virus restrictions are still in place. Mr Sunak is said to have accepted the need to offer some additional support to claimants beyond the end of April, but a final decision on whether this would be via an extension to Universal Credit has yet to be made.

On Friday night, senior Conservative sources said Number 10 was ratcheting up pressure on the Chancellor to make an announcement on Universal Credit in the coming days rather than at the Budget.

New research published on Friday suggests low-paid workers are more than twice as likely to have lost their jobs during the coronavirus crisis.

The Institute for Employment Studies findings also indicate that workers in low-paid jobs are at greater risk of being temporarily laid off or having their hours cut. Around four million workers have been temporarily laid off or are working fewer hours than normal, its report estimated.


Britain’s Covid bill climbed by a further £34bn during a record-breaking December, stoking fears the Chancellor will use the Budget in March to raise taxes to shore up the public finances.

Another wave of economic support pushed up government borrowing in the first nine months of the financial year to a record £271bn as winter Covid restrictions hit the battered public finances.

Borrowing in December marked the biggest widening of the deficit since May and was the third-highest for any month on record, the Office for National Statistics said. Public debt remained at its highest level since the early 1960s at 99pc of GDP, or £2.1 trillion.

Rishi Sunak said the borrowing binge was the “fiscally responsible thing to do” but cautioned that "we should look to return the public finances to a more sustainable footing" once the recovery begins. The Chancellor has reportedly warned Tory MPs of spending restraints in the run-up to the Budget as speculation over tax hikes mounts.

Public borrowing continues to surge, but is beneath the OBR’s estimates

Economists said the latest surge in the deficit put UK borrowing on track to reach almost £400bn in the current financial year. The deficit is currently £213bn higher than the same period last year.

The sharp rise in borrowing was driven by spending rising by 44pc compared to the same month in 2019. Government revenue fell by just 1.2pc as tax receipts sink.

Samuel Tombs, Pantheon Macro economist, said borrowing would plunge from around 20pc of GDP this year to below 10pc if government income support schemes ends in the spring and health spending declines.

“We doubt that the Chancellor will go a step further in the Budget on March 3 and push through large immediate tax rises or non-health spending cuts. But the Treasury will not tolerate a 10pc deficit indefinitely.”

There are fears that Mr Sunak will slam the brakes on spending too soon and set back the economy’s recovery.

“The danger is that fiscal policy is tightened too soon to fill a perceived hole in the public finances caused by the crisis that never materialises,” said Thomas Pugh, UK economist at Capital Economics.

“The Chancellor should resist the urge to try to reduce the budget deficit at the next Budget on March 3 and instead focus on continuing to support those areas of the economy that need it.”


Philip Shaw, economist at Investec, said the Chancellor would “attempt to strike a balance between maintaining fiscal credibility and providing continued support to the economy”.

It came as the Office for Budget Responsibility admitted the pandemic will mean it has made the “largest official economic forecast errors ever”. In its annual Forecast Evaluation Report for the financial year 2019-20, the budget watchdog said its forecasts were blown off course in the final few weeks by Covid.

“The effects of the pandemic will also mean that our forecast errors for the current and next few years will be larger than ever,” it said.

So I think the government want to get the number of new cases as low as possible before easing the lockdown, and then put the country straight in Tier 2 (there was story to this effect in the Telegraph a few days ago) as they think that will be more beneficial than slowly going through Tier 4 and then Tier 3.

But the economic problems arising from the lockdown are building up like a pressure cooker and are not going to go away.

Eventually there will come a point when they can be ignored no longer, and I think that point will be in the budget on March 3rd. Rishi Sunak will have to take decisions about trying to stimulate an economic recovery in the spring, which he hopes will reduce the need for painful tax rises in the autumn. However he cannot begin to stimulate an economic recovery if the lockdown is still continuing in its current form, and there is no prospect of it being eased. This is why I believe the government will have to start easing the lockdown in March, (and they know this) and they are trying to get the number of cases as low as possible beforehand.
 
Last edited:

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,747
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I think the government are trying to put off easing the lockdown for now, but they know that they can't keep doing this forever.

The following stories show why:-







So I think the government want to get the number of new cases as low as possible before easing the lockdown, and then put the country straight in Tier 2 (there was story to this effect in the Telegraph a few days ago) as they think that will be more beneficial than slowly going through Tier 4 and then Tier 3.

But the economic problems arising from the lockdown are building up like a pressure cooker and are not going to go away.

Eventually there will come a point when they can be ignored no longer, and I think that point will be in the budget on March 3rd. Rishi Sunak will have to take decisions about trying to stimulate an economic recovery in the spring, which he hopes will reduce the need for painful tax rises in the autumn. However he cannot begin to stimulate an economic recovery if the lockdown is still continuing in its current form, and there is no prospect of it being eased. This is why I believe the government will have to start easing the lockdown in March, (and they know this) and they are trying to get the number of cases as low as possible beforehand.

Well well well, Sunak wants to put off the difficult stuff until the autumn. How convenient that it's all quite likely to be someone else's problem by then.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,710
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Well well well, Sunak wants to put off the difficult stuff until the autumn. How convenient that it's all quite likely to be someone else's problem by then.
Reading between the lines I don't think it is Sunak that wants to put it off, it sounds like its his next door neighbour wanting it. However it is clear that the cost of covid is now moving towards the centre of government thinking, and that some very bad news is in the pipe for millions of people.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,747
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Reading between the lines I don't think it is Sunak that wants to put it off, it sounds like its his next door neighbour wanting it. However it is clear that the cost of covid is now moving towards the centre of government thinking, and that some very bad news is in the pipe for millions of people.

I think there's going to be plenty of bad stuff for all of us this year on the economic front. Whilst it may be gaining in salience, with furlough having been extended so many times it's at the point when we won't believe any claim to be stopping it until it actually happens!

I wonder if the £500 debacle is a hint of the plates changing, though. Clearly there's some substance to the whole thing, so it does seem likely that the £500 was considered and rejected. I suppose we should see that as an encouraging sign. The handouts have got to stop, they're not sustainable, and they're breeding unhealthy attitudes which are partly responsible for driving this the way it's going.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Well well well, Sunak wants to put off the difficult stuff until the autumn. How convenient that it's all quite likely to be someone else's problem by then.

It could still be Sunak's problem by the autumn, except that he (or Sajid Javid) will be Prime Minister by then.

Boris Johnson could quite possibly scarper before all the brown stuff hits the fan resign due to ill health as a result of "long COVID" because he won't want to be blamed for the tax rises and unpopular measures that are undoubtedly on the way.

The point when Boris resigns could well be late summer or early autumn, when everyone has been vaccinated and the lockdown has been substantially eased.

Then Sunak or Javid can pick up the pieces and deal with the legacy of COVID, because you can be sure that no-one else will want to do that, especially that little weasel Michael Gove, or God forbid, Matt Hancock or Priti Patel.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,747
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
It could still be Sunak's problem by the autumn, except that he (or Sajid Javid) will be Prime Minister by then.

Boris Johnson could quite possibly scarper before all the brown stuff hits the fan resign due to ill health as a result of "long COVID" because he won't want to be blamed for the tax rises and unpopular measures that are undoubtedly on the way.

The point when Boris resigns could well be late summer or early autumn, when everyone has been vaccinated and the lockdown has been substantially eased.

Then Sunak or Javid can pick up the pieces and deal with the legacy of COVID, because you can be sure that no-one else will want to do that, especially that little weasel Michael Gove, or God forbid, Matt Hancock or Priti Patel.

I'd say the one absolutely safe bet is that Hancock will disappear once this is all over! One way or other this saga has plenty more to play out, no doubt with further twists along the way. I'll be amazed if BJ is still in post by the autumn though.
 

Class 33

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2009
Messages
2,362
Oh here we go again. Front page of the Sky News website, another government advisor calling for the lockdown to be even stricter! And it's Susan Michie yet again! I am absolutely sick of that woman and others like her who keep calling for stricter lockdown/tougher measures. I wish they would all just bog off. We don't need them. We don't need a stricter lockdown. We want all these lockdowns and restrictions ended!


Government adviser calls for stricter lockdown rules amid fears current restrictions are 'not enough'

An adviser on the government's Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (Spi-B) has said the current lockdown rules are not enough to tackle the more infectious variant of coronavirus, first identified in Kent.

Professor Susan Michie, director of the Centre for Behaviour Change at UCL, said the new government advert urging people to stay at home, as well as talks about higher fines for rule-breakers, were made on the basis that people were not adhering to the rules.

"But actually, all the data show that the overwhelming number of people are sticking to the rules with one exception which is self-isolation," she told Times Radio.

"In fact I would say that it's not so much people not sticking to the rules, but it's the rules themselves that are the problem."

She said there were twice as many people going to work and using public transport compared to the first lockdown, and more children in classrooms because the government "has widened the definition of who's a key worker.

On what restrictions she would like to see, Professor Michie told said: "Do what we did in March but consider are there other things we could tighten.

"The better the lockdown is now the shorter it will be.

"I think we should throw everything we can at really driving transmission down to a low level."
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,932
Location
Yorks
A "behavioural scientist" of all things. Might as well invite Mystic Meg and the Cookie Monster to join SAGE.
 

northernchris

Established Member
Joined
24 Jul 2011
Messages
1,509
I really wish the media wouldn't give Susan Michie airtime, her views are extreme and seem to go unchallenged. I wouldn't mind if it was balanced out by other comments opposing harsher restrictions, or even if she offered some insight on how people can support themselves if they can't work rather than assuming everyone is an fortunate as her
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Oh here we go again. Front page of the Sky News website, another government advisor calling for the lockdown to be even stricter! And it's Susan Michie yet again! I am absolutely sick of that woman and others like her who keep calling for stricter lockdown/tougher measures. I wish they would all just bog off. We don't need them. We don't need a stricter lockdown. We want all these lockdowns and restrictions ended!

Couldn't agree more.

Shall I start a crowdfunding page in order to raise enough money for a one way ticket to a remote island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean for Susan Michie and all the other SAGE scientists? Who would be willing to contribute? Any more suggestions as to who should be given a seat on the plane? <D

The fact is that the current lockdown is working, as evidenced by the fact that new cases are falling, hospitalisations are falling and test positivity is falling.

The vaccination program seems to be progressing well, and whilst no doubt there will be hiccups along the way, every jab in every arm is another step closer to getting back to some semblance of normality.

Susan Michie can just Foxtrot Oscar.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,017
Location
Taunton or Kent
Well well well, we now have scientists playing down the idea this new variant is more deadly:


Scientists say signs a new coronavirus variant is more deadly than the earlier version should not be a "game changer" in the UK's response to the pandemic.

Boris Johnson has said there is "some evidence" the variant may be associated with "a higher degree of mortality".

But the co-author of the study the PM was referring to said the variant's deadliness remained an "open question".

Another adviser said he was surprised Mr Johnson had shared the findings when the data was "not particularly strong".

A third top medic said it was "too early" to be "absolutely clear".

At a Downing Street coronavirus news conference on Friday, the prime minister said: "In addition to spreading more quickly, it also now appears that there is some evidence that the new variant - the variant that was first identified in London and the South East - may be associated with a higher degree of mortality."

Speaking alongside the PM, the government's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said there was "a lot of uncertainty around these numbers" but that early evidence suggested the variant could be about 30% more deadly.

For example, with 1,000 60-year-olds infected with the old variant, 10 of them might be expected to die. But this rises to about 13 with the new variant.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,545
Location
UK
I'm starting to seriously wonder if the medics in charge of our response have any training in statistics whatsoever.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,017
Location
Taunton or Kent
I think there's going to be plenty of bad stuff for all of us this year on the economic front. Whilst it may be gaining in salience, with furlough having been extended so many times it's at the point when we won't believe any claim to be stopping it until it actually happens!

I wonder if the £500 debacle is a hint of the plates changing, though. Clearly there's some substance to the whole thing, so it does seem likely that the £500 was considered and rejected. I suppose we should see that as an encouraging sign. The handouts have got to stop, they're not sustainable, and they're breeding unhealthy attitudes which are partly responsible for driving this the way it's going.
From what I've been hearing this story, in combination with Priti Patel's remarks about how borders should have closed in March last year, is a sign of ministers trying to distance themselves from Johnson when the fallout over his leadership and the overall response really begins to bite. While this £500 claim didn't come from Hancock directly, it came from his department, therefore if we get a load of controversy in future about how this was handled in a self-isolation perspective, he could theoretically argue that he had a policy idea to combat the whole thing but was rejected.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,690
Couldn't agree more.

Shall I start a crowdfunding page in order to raise enough money for a one way ticket to a remote island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean for Susan Michie and all the other SAGE scientists? Who would be willing to contribute? Any more suggestions as to who should be given a seat on the plane? <D
What a good idea, I'll happily contribute! I want Drakeford to have a place on the plane!!
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
10,020
Location
here to eternity
Oh here we go again. Front page of the Sky News website, another government advisor calling for the lockdown to be even stricter! And it's Susan Michie yet again! I am absolutely sick of that woman and others like her who keep calling for stricter lockdown/tougher measures. I wish they would all just bog off. We don't need them. We don't need a stricter lockdown. We want all these lockdowns and restrictions ended!

She called for that last week (and no doubt the week before that as well) so how Sky can claim it's "breaking news" is beyond me.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,059
She called for that last week (and no doubt the week before that as well) so how Sky can claim it's "breaking news" is beyond me.
News is breaking. Soon it will be so broken it is not fit for purpose. This interview, where a nodding donkey with a worthless qualification says whatever she fancies and it is taken as science, is a fine example of news being broken in real time.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,690
News is breaking. Soon it will be so broken it is not fit for purpose. This interview, where a nodding donkey with a worthless qualification says whatever she fancies and it is taken as science, is a fine example of news being broken in real time.
Thought we reached that point a while back?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top