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

[DustyBin]

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’m not suggesting we can shield every last vulnerable person successfully, although that should of course be the aim. And there are of course those who are extremely vulnerable and they present an additional challenge. The latter are however a small minority and whilst that doesn’t make them less important as individuals, we must maintain a sense of perspective. I don’t believe in throwing anybody under the bus as it were, but the fact is there is a novel Coronavirus in circulation and a minority of people are vulnerable to it. I honestly believe the majority of vulnerable people could be successfully shielded if we implemented the measures suggested by myself and others. Again, it’s about reducing the risk not removing it altogether.

In regard to the health service being overwhelmed, I’m sure it could be modelled but once the vulnerable have been shielded to a reasonable degree, I wouldn’t expect this to happen. I think we can all agree that the vast (vast!) majority of hospital admissions are of those in the vulnerable category.

This is the only way out as I see it. The current tinkering with restrictions is destroying the economy and peoples lives, with no end in sight. It’s also leading directly to non-covid deaths. A total lockdown will reduce the number of infections and deaths, but won’t allow a return to normal and we’ll simply start the cycle again. The only other way out I can think of is via a successful vaccine, but this may or may not materialise and we can’t afford to wait any longer.

Unfortunately in the absence of a perfect solution, I think we need to look at what does the least harm to the majority and go with that option. It’s not easy admittedly.

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.

Agreed.

 

[MikeWM]

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.

I see what you did there...

Maybe worth pointing out (again) that the person who 'invented' this strategy has, no doubt entirely coincidentally, made a vast amount of money over the past months with his senior role at an online education provider.

 

[Bantamzen]

I see what you did there...

Maybe worth pointing out (again) that the person who 'invented' this strategy has, no doubt entirely coincidentally, made a vast amount of money over the past months with his senior role at an online education provider.

I've long had an uncomfortable feeling for a while that some people are busy lining their pockets through covid. Its just a feeling of course, but over three decades in the public sector have made me somewhat cynical. I'm not saying it all start with opportunism, but I'm sure a few people may have stumbled across opportunities.

 

[StationTown]

Unfortunately in the absence of a perfect solution, I think we need to look at what does the least harm to the majority and go with that option. It’s not easy admittedly.

I agree there is no perfect solution. It's an extremely difficult situation and there are no easy answers. I have given my view on why I believe a shielding policy as you suggest is problematic. It risks preventable suffering and death to extremely vulnerable people who we, as a society, have a responsibility to protect. I also have doubts as to whether it will save the economy in the way some people are suggesting. There are other options that can be pursued before taking such risks. Perhaps the 'experts' have done this cost/benefit analysis and decided that, considering all factors, the current strategy is the least bad option. This is far from ideal but maybe it's the reality.

In this sense, as I've said before, I think the problem we have now is not strategy but implementation. My anger is directed at dismal governance, not the scientists.

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree there is no perfect solution. It's an extremely difficult situation and there are no easy answers. I have given my view on why I believe a shielding policy as you suggest is problematic. It risks preventable suffering and death to extremely vulnerable people who we, as a society, have a responsibility to protect. I also have doubts as to whether it will save the economy in the way some people are suggesting. There are other options that can be pursued before taking such risks. Perhaps the 'experts' have done this cost/benefit analysis and decided that, considering all factors, the current strategy is the least bad option. This is far from ideal but maybe it's the reality.

In this sense, as I've said before, I think the problem we have now is not strategy but implementation. My anger is directed at dismal governance, not the scientists.

But we also have a responsibility to everyone else too. Jobs are disappearing at a pace, especially for people in lower income work, and these losses have a domino effect. The Chancellor is already obviously very uneasy about the cost of all this, and how we make up the deficit. Sooner or later this will eventually lead to higher taxation which a lot of people won't be able to afford and/or deep cuts in public services, of which the NHS would not be exempt. And don't forget that in the fog that is Brexit, there was talk at one point of the US having an interest in buying into it. They will not have forgotten about that.

There is a tipping point at which we can no longer ignore the wider need of everyone.

 

[DB]

I have given my view on why I believe a shielding policy as you suggest is problematic. It risks preventable suffering and death to extremely vulnerable people who we, as a society, have a responsibility to protect.

But the current policy also risks this, and probably for a longer time period. So what is being gained? There's still little evidence that the current mess of restrictions and rules are actually making much difference.

It's not a message which anyone likes, but the reality is that it's not possible to protect everyone completely, and people will die from this (in most cases, they are people who would probably have died in the near future anyway). For some reason a proportion of the population seems to believe that it's avoidable, which it isn't.

 

[takno]

I agree there is no perfect solution. It's an extremely difficult situation and there are no easy answers. I have given my view on why I believe a shielding policy as you suggest is problematic. It risks preventable suffering and death to extremely vulnerable people who we, as a society, have a responsibility to protect. I also have doubts as to whether it will save the economy in the way some people are suggesting. There are other options that can be pursued before taking such risks. Perhaps the 'experts' have done this cost/benefit analysis and decided that, considering all factors, the current strategy is the least bad option. This is far from ideal but maybe it's the reality.

In this sense, as I've said before, I think the problem we have now is not strategy but implementation. My anger is directed at dismal governance, not the scientists.

Agreed. There are 4 possible strategies: 1 ignore it completely, 2 shielding and very light restrictions, 3 arbitrary unpleasant and ineffective restrictions, and 4 full-on lockdown.

In terms of the Covid impact 1 kills up to about 5% of most vulnerable elderly and not a lot of other people at all, 2 might kill half that, 3 will probably kill about the same but potentially slightly more slowly, and 4 might actually minimize that.

On an economic level 1 might be somewhat distruptive with people off sick, 2 might be slightly more disruptive with the loss of working shielders, 3 loses us about 20% of the economy through loss of custom and another 5% through people self-isolating, and 4 could literally ruin us all.

On an implementation level we appear to be going with 3 because the government knows fine well they should be doing 2, but are too scared and pathetic to tell the truth at all the idiots shouting for 4. I'm angry at Scientists who, often without any actual scientific backing, are demanding 4 even though they know it's not a credible plan. I'm far more angry though with politicians who won't make any attempt to lead public opinion, and think their entire job is to mollify people in focus groups.

 

[adc82140]

Former health secretary Jeremy Hunt has said in parliament today that ultimately ministers make decisions, not scientists. If that's not a swipe at some of the more vociferous members of SAGE I don't know what is.

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

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

An interesting read. On the plus side, it's against masks outside and not hugely in favour of them in offices etc.

 

[takno]

An interesting read. On the plus side, it's against masks outside and not hugely in favour of them in offices etc.

Whilst I tend to agree that they are at the absolute best useless, I suspect they've put them in this list as being useless to bolster their argument that we are actually doing very little at the moment, safe in the knowledge that nobody is actually going to get rid of them

 

[kieron]

For what it's worth, Matthew Hancock gave the "Great Barrington Declaration" a bit of scrutiny today, There's a clip of his response here. The web page summarises his argument as;

... on the substance, the Great Barrington declaration is underpinned by two central planes and both are emphatically wrong ...

We will reach herd immunity: Hancock points out many infectious diseases never reach herd immunity, e.g. measles, malaria and AIDS; plus there’s increasing evidence of Covid re-infection

We can segregate the old and vulnerable on the way to herd immunity: Intergenerational homes, older people needing carers and when young people can suffer from long-Covid

 

[Yew]

Again with the long covid, lots of anecdote, not a lot of science.

 

[brad465]

For what it's worth, Matthew Hancock gave the "Great Barrington Declaration" a bit of scrutiny today, There's a clip of his response here. The web page summarises his argument as;

Hancock stating there's evidence of re-infection is contradicting his own argument that this virus is a threat until there is a vaccine (it wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't realise this). If it's such a threat that almost an entire population has to be vaccinated as frequently as say the flu vaccination is needed, achieving such levels of vaccination is impossible, or at the very least will take years we don't have to make it possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hancock stating there's evidence of re-infection is contradicting his own argument that this virus is a threat until there is a vaccine (it wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't realise this). If it's such a threat that almost an entire population has to be vaccinated as frequently as say the flu vaccination is needed, achieving such levels of vaccination is impossible, or at the very least will take years we don't have to make it possible.

It's easier than flu, because it doesn't mutate anywhere near as fast as flu.

 

[Yew]

It's easier than flu, because it doesn't mutate anywhere near as fast as flu.

That also suggests that longer-term immunity is reasonable, of course our beloved tyrants didn't mention that.

 

[kieron]

Hancock stating there's evidence of re-infection is contradicting his own argument that this virus is a threat until there is a vaccine (it wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't realise this).

If a fact contradicts an argument, it's usually the argument that comes off worse.

That also suggests that longer-term immunity is reasonable, of course our beloved tyrants didn't mention that.

I think the American "tyrant" said something along those lines quite recently.

It could turn out that a Covid-19 vaccine offers longer term immunity than a flu vaccine. That's quite a low bar, though.

 

[Horizon22]

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.

No but they did cause serious social upheaval and change, which may be the natural way of things.

As for the experts they are medical professionals and experts, but you don't have to look far to see people disagree with their analysis and then people disagree with that analysis. Such is the way in the professional scientific world. They of course don't have the (arguably) harder job of trying to balance known immediate health risks with the economic and wider health consequences of lockdowns / herd immunity etc. I think it is reasonable for them to present worst-case scenarios. If the media spin that in such a way that makes them seem unreliable that does cause a wider distrust. Although everyone seems rather distrusting of everyone at the moment with regards to Covid decisions being taken.

 

[yorksrob]

In terms of the original question, I trust the motives of our experts, but they're clearly running around like headless chickens as they don't have a viable answer, short of attempting to suspend human nature indefinately.

 

[Bantamzen]

In terms of the original question, I trust the motives of our experts, but they're clearly running around like headless chickens as they don't have a viable answer, short of attempting to suspend human nature indefinately.

Theoretically lockdowns could work of course, but you have to shut down more than just human nature. You literally would have to seal us in for a considerable amount of time, no going outside, no contact, no pubs, no restaurants, no trains, no buses, no offices, no shops, no doctors, no hospitals, I mean literally every facet of our existence would have to be shut down. But even then, the virus might just skip species and wait for us to come back out....

 

[Mag_seven]

Theoretically lockdowns could work of course, but you have to shut down more than just human nature. You literally would have to seal us in for a considerable amount of time, no going outside, no contact, no pubs, no restaurants, no trains, no buses, no offices, no shops, no doctors, no hospitals, I mean literally every facet of our existence would have to be shut down.

You forgot to add, no electricity, no gas, and no running water either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You forgot to add, no electricity, no gas, and no running water either.

I think we are being silly now. Clearly such a lockdown would bring cases down quicker, but it's clear that the "lockdown lite" that we did have was very effective, it just needed to be 3-6 weeks longer.

 

[Bantamzen]

You forgot to add, no electricity, no gas, and no running water either.

And internet, we don't need internet!

I think we are being silly now. Clearly such a lockdown would bring cases down quicker, but it's clear that the "lockdown lite" that we did have was very effective, it just needed to be 3-6 weeks longer.

Oh! So why didn't you say so? Gosh you could have saved us all the hassle, if we'd have only extended the lockdown by another couple of months the virus would have got bored and buggered off. You really ought to join SAGE, you'd fit right in!

 

[big_rig]

And internet, we don't need internet!



Oh! So why didn't you say so? Gosh you could have saved us all the hassle, if we'd have only extended the lockdown by another couple of months the virus would have got bored and buggered off. You really ought to join SAGE, you'd fit right in!

I think the problem was that we didn’t bar children from going outside and require people to take a piece of paper with them to show police the purpose of their excursion, hence it not being a true lockdown. As we know, France and Spain don’t have any virus now after doing that, nor does Scotland who extended their misery further than us in England

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh! So why didn't you say so? Gosh you could have saved us all the hassle, if we'd have only extended the lockdown by another couple of months the virus would have got bored and buggered off. You really ought to join SAGE, you'd fit right in!

Lots of people were saying that at the time.

I don't think it's right to cast aspersions at SAGE over this, they are doing their job, they are the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, not the Economic Advisory Group for Emergencies. This is only a problem because the Cabinet are inept.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think the problem was that we didn’t bar children from going outside and require people to take a piece of paper with them to show police the purpose of their excursion, hence it not being a true lockdown. As we know, France and Spain don’t have any virus now after doing that, not does Scotland who extended their misery further than us in England

Yeah, we needed more restrictions, viruses hate restrictions especially ones that involve getting a note from teacher to allow you to leave the room....

Lots of people were saying that at the time.

Good for them. Did anybody bother asking the virus?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good for them. Did anybody bother asking the virus?

I'm not sure that level of facetiousness is helpful to the debate.

 

[trebor79]

For what it's worth, Matthew Hancock gave the "Great Barrington Declaration" a bit of scrutiny today, There's a clip of his response here. The web page summarises his argument as;

.. on the substance, the Great Barrington declaration is underpinned by two central planes and both are emphatically wrong ...

We will reach herd immunity: Hancock points out many infectious diseases never reach herd immunity, e.g. measles, malaria and AIDS; plus there’s increasing evidence of Covid re-infection

Hmm. Well, malaria is caused by a parasite, not a pathogen. So it's more akin to tapeworms than a respiratory virus. AIDS of course isn't a pathogen, but the symptoms of the HIV virus. The reason there's no herd immunity to HIV is because the immune system is not capable of eliminating it from the body - it's kind of a special case. Plus [untreated] the host dies in 100% of cases so there will never be immune people walking around.
Measles, there is effective herd immunity - most people will remember having had this as a childhood disease. It's not particularly dangerous to children and immunity is then usually conferred for life.

We can segregate the old and vulnerable on the way to herd immunity: Intergenerational homes, older people needing carers and when young people can suffer from long-Covid

The intergenerational homes and people needing carers are solvable with a little thought - certainly it would be possible to protect them better than with the current status quo, where basically the virus will reach them sooner or later because no particular provision is being made for them.
Long COVID is just post-viral fatigue, it's not some weird groovy syndrome particular to this one virus.

Basically Hancock doesn't know what he's talking about. I am unsurprised. I am surprised SAGE haven't briefed him better.

 

[Yew]

I think it's worth remembering when we discuss this that there is elimination through herd immunity, and suppression through herd immunity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Measles, there is effective herd immunity - most people will remember having had this as a childhood disease. It's not particularly dangerous to children and immunity is then usually conferred for life.

That isn't herd immunity. Herd immunity is where the disease dies out, effectively, because of the number of people who had it.

It also was so "effective" that a vaccine was developed.

 

[trebor79]

That isn't herd immunity. Herd immunity is where the disease dies out, effectively, because of the number of people who had it.

It also was so "effective" that a vaccine was developed.

From a clinical "don't overwhelm the NHS" standpoint we effectively had herd immunity in this country before the vaccine.
I agree eradication is impossible (at least in the hyper connected modern world) without vaccination.

Point remains that Hancock is either clueless or deliberately misrepresenting things in order to defend and increasingly indefensible approach. Either is bad news.