Do we trust the experts in regard to COVID-19?

[DelayRepay]

Not guaranteed as if she caught it just prior to admission it would not necessarily be picked up by a test made on admission.

It's possible, but either way she shouldn't really be counted in the 'in hospital with Covid' figures since her reason for being in hospital was nothing to do with Covid. I am not sure whether people like her are counted or not, but I suspect they are.

I believe her first test was a few days before admission and she was instructed to self-isolate after the test until admission, which she did.

 

[jtuk]

Is Gates pushing for lockdowns? If not I have nothing against him.

I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories

Just wait for them to increase the cost of Microsoft Teams

 

[Jamiescott1]

Not sure if you'd class as experts but I dont trust some of the "media doctors".
Hillary Jones and Sarah jarvis

 

[RT4038]

Quite honestly I neither trust not distrust the experts, for me it isn't about trust but about balance. We need the experts advising the government to be constantly be challenged, and to bring forward what they constantly refer to as "growing evidence" for scrutiny. That scrutiny should be be coming from their peers & the media, as well as being added to the government's line of thinking. Its not entirely clear if the latter happens, the government are not being fully transparent about this, but the former does seem to be suppresses and it has only been in the last few weeks that the media have actually started to ask tough questions.

The risk here is that the experts at the government's ear are stuck, to use one of their phrases, in something of a support bubble where they don't have to worry about scrutiny and become fixated on only their ideas, even if their ideas are not working. So it doesn't matter whether or not that I trust them or not, I am concerned they are not offering the best advice any more, if indeed they ever did.

As if anybody knows what the best advice is anyway?

 

[Bantamzen]

As if anybody knows what the best advice is anyway?

No, which is why it is so important for all the differing approaches be appraised critically & publicly, so we can better understand why these decisions are being made instead of just being told what they are do is in our interest.

 

[Domh245]

It's possible, but either way she shouldn't really be counted in the 'in hospital with Covid' figures since her reason for being in hospital was nothing to do with Covid. I am not sure whether people like her are counted or not, but I suspect they are.

I believe her first test was a few days before admission and she was instructed to self-isolate after the test until admission, which she did.

She would be included in the figures in this case. The definition of Covid patient (for english hospitals) taken from the government dashboard is:

England data include people admitted to hospital who tested positive for COVID-19 in the 14 days prior to admission, and those who tested positive in hospital after admission. Inpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 after admission are reported as being admitted on the day prior to their diagnosis.

It's a bit like the 28 day cutoff that was introduced for deaths. Sure there may have been people who were hit by a bus on their way home from a positive test and were officially Covid death, but by and large it was an accurate reflection of the total number of deaths. Are there enough people who are in hospital with, but not because of, Covid to distort the data enough that we can ignore the rising numbers? I would think that's unlikely.

 

[87electric]

No, which is why it is so important for all the differing approaches be appraised critically & publicly, so we can better understand why these decisions are being made instead of just being told what they are do is in our interest.

Agreed. It’s ok an expert saying a decision is all for the greater good. But whose greater good. More clarity is needed. And they should stop dispensing us with hollow sounding phrases.

 

[raetiamann]

There's an old saying about experts. They don't know too much more than everyone else, but they should have a much better quality of wrong answer.

 

[StationTown]

It is interesting the cynicism there is from some over Bill Gate's philanthropy and his motives. Maybe we are now just too accustomed to see the bad in people or assume nefarious purposes behind every action nowadays.

Of course he could be secretly evil but i prefer to give folks the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise.

Good comment. In relation to experts, I believe some people are too quick to question the motives of people, especially if they don't like what they're being told, rather than actually engaging in the content of their argument. This results in the debate becoming unnecessarily partisan, which is unhelpful. I agree about giving people the benefit of the doubt where possible

 

[RT4038]

No, which is why it is so important for all the differing approaches be appraised critically & publicly, so we can better understand why these decisions are being made instead of just being told what they are do is in our interest.

But who would be appraising the different approaches, and how different would be the opinions in the interpretation of each approach ? When the differing approaches have been appraised critically, how is it to be decided which one is the 'best one'? Would this be by a referendum?

I understand that the situation is incredibly frustrating, but is knowing more going to help, or just raise even more questions and doubts in our heads, without actually producing a single solution. If the experts can't agree, what hope have we ordinary mortals got?

 

[raetiamann]

With experts and indeed with research, it's very useful to know who is funding the individuals/companies.

 

[DustyBin]

This seems like the most appropriate place to discuss this:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/923668/Weekly_COVID19_Surveillance_Report_week_40.pdf

This report summarises the information from the surveillance systems which are used to monitor the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in England. More information on the surveillance systems are available here.
The report is based on data from week 39 (between 21 August and 27 September 2020) and for some indicators daily data up to 29 September 2020. References to COVID-19 represent the disease name and SARS-CoV-2 represent the virus name.
Data is reported from week 27 (week beginning 29 June 2020) onwards. For reports with data prior to week 27, consult previous reports here.
This will be the last COVID-19 surveillance report, as of 8 October 2020, the information in this report will be published in a combined Weekly flu and COVID-19 Surveillance Report on GOV.UK.

Not my bold incidentally. I’d like to think we aren’t about to see flu and COVID-19 figures rolled into one? Please, somebody reassure me....

 

[big_rig]

No, which is why it is so important for all the differing approaches be appraised critically & publicly, so we can better understand why these decisions are being made instead of just being told what they are do is in our interest.

Might be of interest - here is a link to a 'table of non-pharmaceutical interventions' published by SAGE yesterday. It gives the latest 'science' on the impact of each intervention, positive and negative.

It fits my view that this 'evidence' is essentially completely made up and meaningless. Each of the tables is filled with backside-covering and it makes a mockery of the idea that they can 'pick and choose' a series of measures to reduce the R0 to a precise value - next to none of these measures beyond barricading people indoors has any level of confidence in whether it would work and what impact it would have. Negative impacts of measures are also consistently downplayed. An undergraduate would get a fail mark if they submitted this as homework but in October 2020 it is the best that the experts can come up with.

It is also completely all over the place. In 'non covid impacts, excluding economic' they talk about...economic impacts for some measures and not others. Really poor work.

Table of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions - SAGE, September 2020

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925856/S0770_NPIs_table__pivot_.pdf

 

[Yew]

He has no power to do that. It's Governments doing that.

Apologies, I was a little unclear, I meant something more along the lines of "his push for vaccines has been used by some governments to justify".

It's possible, but either way she shouldn't really be counted in the 'in hospital with Covid' figures since her reason for being in hospital was nothing to do with Covid. I am not sure whether people like her are counted or not, but I suspect they are.

I believe her first test was a few days before admission and she was instructed to self-isolate after the test until admission, which she did.

She should be counted for the purposes of trying to isolate her from vulnerable patients who are at risk for covid, but you're right that she shouldn't be in the daily figures.

Not sure if you'd class as experts but I dont trust some of the "media doctors".
Hillary Jones and Sarah jarvis

It's important to remember that doctors are not epidemiologists or public health experts.

There's an old saying about experts. They don't know too much more than everyone else, but they should have a much better quality of wrong answer.

Similar with modelling "all models are wrong, but some can be useful". - unfortunately Fergursons model only fits the former category.

 

[Jozhua]

A woman I know of went in for routine surgery that was nothing to do with Covid. She tested negative on admission, and tested positive before being released. So it appears she caught it in the hospital. I wonder if she was counted in the figures?

Like so many, she had no symptoms.

Hope she makes a speedy recovery!

Seems somewhat like she caught it in hospital, although you can't be sure.

She would be included in the figures in this case. The definition of Covid patient (for english hospitals) taken from the government dashboard is:

It's a bit like the 28 day cutoff that was introduced for deaths. Sure there may have been people who were hit by a bus on their way home from a positive test and were officially Covid death, but by and large it was an accurate reflection of the total number of deaths. Are there enough people who are in hospital with, but not because of, Covid to distort the data enough that we can ignore the rising numbers? I would think that's unlikely.

Well, I think more hospital patients are getting tested for covid than in March, which is what we are mostly comparing to at the moment.

I still think healthcare is a better measure than 'cases', but we need to be careful lumping in patients in with COVID, or in because of COVID.

 

[Bletchleyite]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925856/S0770_NPIs_table__pivot_.pdf

Thanks for that.

So having read it, my conclusion is that, pending a vaccine, we should remove all outdoor restrictions (allowing things like Parkrun to restart) and should go along with what SAGE suggested, namely periodic "circuit breaker" 2 week full national lockdowns (as per March) based on the impact to the NHS. Retain recommendation to work from home and table service only in hospitality. Have a rule of perhaps 12 for indoors to allow family Christmasses but not massive house parties.

Almost nothing else (other than indoor masks where 2m distancing is impossible 100% of the time) seems to have any considerable effect and should be removed.

FWIW it seems to have backed up my idea that a "Great British Outdoor Summer" is what should have been pushed back in June - restrictions indoors, none at all outdoors.

 

[Domh245]

Almost nothing else (other than indoor masks where 2m distancing is impossible 100% of the time) seems to have any considerable effect and should be removed.

uh..

Intervention: Extend requirement for use of face covering indoors (e.g. shared offices, schools)
Impact on COVID transmission: Low-moderate impact overall but may be beneficial where distancing is harder or where ventilation is poor. Reduction in risk due to source control likely to outweigh any risks of transmission from soiled face coverings when worn for long durations. Evidence from healthcare suggests universal masking helped to bring hospital outbreaks under control. No evidence of effectiveness in children
Direct impact on COVID deaths and severe disease: Some suggestion that the face covering may reduce viral exposure, leading to less severe symptoms.

I wouldn't call that 'considerable effect' (although worth noting there's plenty of other 'low-moderate' transmission impact interventions, such as closing gyms and childcare - why do you recommend masks but not those?)

 

[StationTown]

I trust experts who take a holistic, balanced approach. I do not trust experts who take a narrow view.

I do not trust Tedros Ghebreyesus one bit.

Coronavirus: WHO head calls herd immunity approach 'immoral'

Dr Ghebreyesus said allowing coronavirus to spread unchecked would cause unnecessary suffering and death.

www.bbc.co.uk

Herd immunity is not a 'strategy' but is a naturally occurring phenomenon that protects us.

Tedros Ghebreyesus approach is scientifically and ethically problematic; his approach of harsh measures is completely unaffordable and disproportionately further disadvantages younger and poorer people.

Harsh lockdowns cause unnecessary suffering and hardship and cause huge long term damage.

I'm absolutely sick of people listening to Tedros; he is downright dangerous in my opinion.

This virus cannot be eliminated; the only way out is herd immunity. But we've been told people under 50 won't be getting the vaccine. People under 50 are effectively being told (except we're not actually being told!) that many of us are going to get it, but we must ensure many of of us are made redundant, suffer hardship, lose livelihoods and place the nation into huge debt, over the next few months in order to delay getting it until after the vaccine has been rolled out. While we're told to expect the vaccine in early 2021, the likes of Whitty are warning we could be in this state for much longer as there is no guarantee a vaccine will be ready by then.

How can 'experts' who are incredibly biased against younger/disadvantaged people possibly be trusted?

I'm one of the lucky ones: able to work from home where required, not made redundant, no issues with jobs (in fact I've turned jobs down) but I see the incredible injustice which is affecting people I know deeply; I cannot sit idly by and not speak out against this awful injustice just because it doesn't affect me

Those who support lockdowns have no endgame; they cannot see the bigger picture; they lack vision and understanding. And they make me angry.

I agree herd immunity is an outcome, not a strategy. You criticise current strategy. What are you actually proposing we do now?

How are you going to balance the needs of young people with other vulnerable people?

For me, the dividing line in the debate is not around lockdown. It is between those who think it is important to keep level of infection in the community as low as possible (and controlled, if required, through measures to reduce transmission) and those who argue level of infection in the community go essentially unchecked. I place myself in the former category. My anger is directed not at strategy per se but at the dismal failure in policy implementation, and poor governance is primarily to blame for this.

You are free to disagree with me. I will not accuse you of lacking compassion, vision or understanding.

 

[trebor79]

This virus cannot be eliminated; the only way out is herd immunity. But we've been told people under 50 won't be getting the vaccine. People under 50 are effectively being told (except we're not actually being told!) that many of us are going to get it, but we must ensure many of of us are made redundant, suffer hardship, lose livelihoods and place the nation into huge debt, over the next few months in order to delay getting it until after the vaccine has been rolled out. While we're told to expect the vaccine in early 2021, the likes of Whitty are warning we could be in this state for much longer as there is no guarantee a vaccine will be ready by then.

...

Those who support lockdowns have no endgame; they cannot see the bigger picture; they lack vision and understanding. And they make me angry.

When all of this madness is at an end I'd really like to sit down and have a beer with you. I think we'd get on really well.
Depressingly, I don't think that there will be any change in approach until we reach the point of some kind of societal collapse. The opposition is ineffective, "disagreeing" with government policies but then voting for them anyway.
I think in a decade we are highly likely to be in a world where there is no universal healthcare (certainly not to the extent currently enjoyed), millions living in relative poverty with no work and no hope, and an "elite" in steady employment, taxed to hilt to to try and pay the bills currently being incurred.
We'll look back on 2020 and say "What on earth did we throw it all away for?".

 

[DustyBin]

When all of this madness is at an end I'd really like to sit down and have a beer with you. I think we'd get on really well.
Depressingly, I don't think that there will be any change in approach until we reach the point of some kind of societal collapse. The opposition is ineffective, "disagreeing" with government policies but then voting for them anyway.
I think in a decade we are highly likely to be in a world where there is no universal healthcare (certainly not to the extent currently enjoyed), millions living in relative poverty with no work and no hope, and an "elite" in steady employment, taxed to hilt to to try and pay the bills currently being incurred.
We'll look back on 2020 and say "What on earth did we throw it all away for?".

Thats my fear, we’re approaching the point of no return and a lot of people can’t see it. The world we are about to enter is not going to be a happy place for many, I just wish the ‘many’ would wake up to that fact....

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think that there will be any change in approach until we reach the point of some kind of societal collapse

And I don't think the hyperbole is particularly helpful, to be honest. While the effects are different, World Wars haven't caused societal collapse. They do cause an economic depression, which is likely to happen here, but let's be realistic about things.

I also note that the riots etc that some seem to think will happen still haven't. Could this be because the majority of people actually agree that this is a problem and we do have to do something about it?

Thats my fear, we’re approaching the point of no return and a lot of people can’t see it. The world we are about to enter is not going to be a happy place for many, I just wish the ‘many’ would wake up to that fact....

What "point of no return"?

 

[DustyBin]

I agree herd immunity is an outcome, not a strategy. You criticise current strategy. What are you actually proposing we do now?

How are you going to balance the needs of young people with other vulnerable people?

For me, the dividing line in the debate is not around lockdown. It is between those who think it is important to keep level of infection in the community as low as possible (and controlled, if required, through measures to reduce transmission) and those who argue level of infection in the community go essentially unchecked. I place myself in the former category. My anger is directed not at strategy per se but at the dismal failure in policy implementation, and poor governance is primarily to blame for this.

You are free to disagree with me. I will not accuse you of lacking compassion, vision or understanding.

In very simple terms, I disagree with you on the basis that the virus can’t be controlled without causing an unacceptable level of economic damage. It’s questionable whether it can be controlled at all. The only realistic option (IMO) is to attempt to shield the vulnerable and let the rest of us continue our lives whilst treatments or a vaccine are being developed. I think we’re well and truly into ‘cure worse than the disease’ territory as it stands.

And I don't think the hyperbole is particularly helpful, to be honest. While the effects are different, World Wars haven't caused societal collapse. They do cause an economic depression, which is likely to happen here, but let's be realistic about things.

I also note that the riots etc that some seem to think will happen still haven't. Could this be because the majority of people actually agree that this is a problem and we do have to do something about it?



What "point of no return"?

It’s still early days, there are plenty more restrictions to be introduced and plenty more jobs to be lost yet. Nobody wants to see civil unrest but I couldn’t confidently rule it out.

By point of no return I mean the point at which life will never return to normal. As well as the economic impact and financial consequences for individuals, I don’t believe we’ll regain all of the freedoms we’ve lost.

 

[bramling]

Thanks for that.

So having read it, my conclusion is that, pending a vaccine, we should remove all outdoor restrictions (allowing things like Parkrun to restart) and should go along with what SAGE suggested, namely periodic "circuit breaker" 2 week full national lockdowns (as per March) based on the impact to the NHS. Retain recommendation to work from home and table service only in hospitality. Have a rule of perhaps 12 for indoors to allow family Christmasses but not massive house parties.

Almost nothing else (other than indoor masks where 2m distancing is impossible 100% of the time) seems to have any considerable effect and should be removed.

FWIW it seems to have backed up my idea that a "Great British Outdoor Summer" is what should have been pushed back in June - restrictions indoors, none at all outdoors.

The thing is I don’t see a “circuit breaker” working unless it was a really full and complete shutdown, of all but the absolute most bare essential workplaces. That’s pretty much impossible to achieve, let alone is affordable.

They say themselves that all a circuit breaker does is push things back a bit, and that assumes decent compliance which I think is quite an assumption now people are beginning to seriously tire of all this.

 

[DB]

Intervention: Extend requirement for use of face covering indoors (e.g. shared offices, schools)
Impact on COVID transmission: Low-moderate impact overall but may be beneficial where distancing is harder or where ventilation is poor. Reduction in risk due to source control likely to outweigh any risks of transmission from soiled face coverings when worn for long durations. Evidence from healthcare suggests universal masking helped to bring hospital outbreaks under control. No evidence of effectiveness in children
Direct impact on COVID deaths and severe disease: Some suggestion that the face covering may reduce viral exposure, leading to less severe symptoms.

So yet again they are claiming 'evidence from healthcare', and brushing off all the reasons why it's completely different. 'Reduction in risk due to source control likely to outweigh any risks of transmission from soiled face coverings when worn for long durations' - and on what basis have they concluded that?

It's telling that they are still banging the drum about masks using the healthcare comparisons - if masks were effective among the public, why is there still no evidence at all for this given how many countries have introduced draconian mask laws?

 

[MikeWM]

I agree herd immunity is an outcome, not a strategy. You criticise current strategy. What are you actually proposing we do now?

We had an interesting thread on this a couple of months ago. I stand by what I wrote then as being a far better strategy than what we currently have - see here.

Actually, that seems pretty similar to the proposals of the Great Barrington declaration.

 

[StationTown]

In very simple terms, I disagree with you on the basis that the virus can’t be controlled without causing an unacceptable level of economic damage. It’s questionable whether it can be controlled at all. The only realistic option (IMO) is to attempt to shield the vulnerable and let the rest of us continue our lives whilst treatments or a vaccine are being developed. I think we’re well and truly into ‘cure worse than the disease’ territory as it stands.

I can see the logic in what you are saying but ultimately, I think you overestimate how feasible it is to shield the vulnerable and underestimate the risk in the health service being overwhelmed and the consequences of this for the population more widely. No doubt there are other problems. I think there's an attraction to the strategy you propose, not least because it appears to give us a "way out", but it is more problematic than it initially appears. In relation to the topic of experts, I trust people like our Chief Medical Officer have considered such a policy and decided against it. I accept that.

 

[DB]

In relation to the topic of experts, I trust people like our Chief Medical Officer have considered such a policy and decided against it. I accept that.

The chief medical officer is likely to recommend what he perceives to be the least-risky strategy to his reputation (as anyone in that position probably would). However, he is looking solely at the perceived risks from the virus. It is up to the government to balance this against the harm caused by following draconian policies, and this is something they have proved very bad at doing.

 

[trebor79]

And I don't think the hyperbole is particularly helpful, to be honest. While the effects are different, World Wars haven't caused societal collapse. They do cause an economic depression, which is likely to happen here, but let's be realistic about things.

World wars certainly did lead to societal collapse and upheaval. Look at Germany in the 1920s, for example.
The bug difference between a war and a medical situation is that it's very easy for people to understand why it might be a good idea to go to the shelter when the air raid siren goes off. Hiding underground is going to demonstrably improve your chances. If you choose to stay in bed, then that's your choice and can't possibly harm anyone else.
Wearing a mask is debatable at best. And now we have the horrid situation where people are being vitriolic towards those who can't or chose not to in situations that they aren't mandated for because they believe that somehow that puts them or granny at risk.

Wars did not result in the edicts compelling large sections of the economy to close indefinitely. Some businesses closed because people went off to fight, but there wasn't wholesale closure orders.

People accepted that wars result in very large numbers of people getting injured, maimed and killed. Government seems to be peddling a notion that if we all make sacrifices the virus will somehow go away. It won't, it'll be waiting to get granny sooner or later.

Comparing this situation to a war is as unhelpful as my hyperbole. It's not a war, the responses and public concern are completely different to a war situation.
Also I'm not actually saying there will be some kind of societal collapse, just that unfortunately I can't see the governmental types admitting the collosal errors that have been made and changing course without one.

 

[backontrack]

Maybe I'd be suspicious of "THE EXPERTS" if these experts were all saying the same thing.

They're not.

 

[takno]

I can see the logic in what you are saying but ultimately, I think you overestimate how feasible it is to shield the vulnerable and underestimate the risk in the health service being overwhelmed and the consequences of this for the population more widely. No doubt there are other problems. I think there's an attraction to the strategy you propose, not least because it appears to give us a "way out", but it is more problematic than it initially appears. In relation to the topic of experts, I trust people like our Chief Medical Officer have considered such a policy and decided against it. I accept that.

I think it's more likely given the messaging at the time that tweedle-dumb and tweedle-twit* considered the policy, decided in favour of it, but then bricked it when a bunch of scarcely-informed academics and the Tedros-supporting arm of the WHO shouted at them about killing grannies. There's an attraction to the open-society strategy because it's the right thing to do.

The hammer-the-economy-and-ban-dancing strategy we are following has every chance of killing just as many people through Covid just over a slightly longer time, will certainly lead to just as many cases of long-Covid since we aren't even planning to vaccinate the under 50s, and will utterly destroy the economy and lives of millions in the process. It's a vile and morally-bankrupt course of action, and much as the politicians should be there to prevent it happening, I think it reflects pretty appallingly on the medical professionals who feel free to recommend it.

*other vowels are available