| Consensus has not changed on 10:22 - May 10 with 354 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:14 - May 10 by eireblue |
Well what is amusing.
Callis was even further ahead of Cummings, in his thinking and questioning.
Maybe Callis should be one of the free thinkers that Cummings was looking for. |
That’s harsh from you towards Callis. Cummings said he was looking for freaks and weirdos amongst those free thinkers.
But as I said, I don’t think we will know for 18 months whether those in the CMO/CSA or Callis/Dom Cummings camp was right or wrong. [Post edited 10 May 2020 10:25]
|  |
|  |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:23 - May 10 with 355 views | eireblue |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:14 - May 10 by NewcyBlue |
I wonder if a study into social media posts would have given an idea as to lockdown adherence.
People seem to put every aspect of their lives on social media. |
Or even, knowing that in an exponentially growing problem, you need to be very, very clear in your messaging and rational, work very hard on that.
I would contrast Leo Varadkar and Jarcinda Arden, with Boris and pals. |  | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:25 - May 10 with 345 views | eireblue |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:16 - May 10 by sparks |
Three was explicit advice on lockdown fatigure from the CMO. he talked about it being a factor in briefings... |
Which is not based on science.
There has not been a lockdown in the U.K. on which to base any predictions. | | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:27 - May 10 with 338 views | sparks |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:25 - May 10 by eireblue |
Which is not based on science.
There has not been a lockdown in the U.K. on which to base any predictions. |
Of course it is based on science- soft science in the form of psychology and sociology, but science nevertheless. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:27 - May 10 with 336 views | factual_blue |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:36 - May 10 by bluelagos |
"Jombart said he and a large number of colleagues had advised the government from the beginning and had recommended a lockdown from early March. At first the government adopted a less stringent set of measures like those in Sweden, only implementing a full lockdown on 23 March."
Does this not contradict the government's (and others') claims that they were following the science? |
They are 'guided' by the science. This form of words is designed to enable the government to claim credit for things that go well as a result of being 'guided' by the science, but to blame the scientists for their guidance when things don't go well.
I don't think they realised the scientists will fight their corner (because, obviously, they're bloody Commies). |  |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:30 - May 10 with 323 views | eireblue |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:22 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
That’s harsh from you towards Callis. Cummings said he was looking for freaks and weirdos amongst those free thinkers.
But as I said, I don’t think we will know for 18 months whether those in the CMO/CSA or Callis/Dom Cummings camp was right or wrong. [Post edited 10 May 2020 10:25]
|
No, that’s harsh by you. Nothing wrong with freaks and weirdos.
But, I only lumped Callis in with the free thinkers. | | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:42 - May 10 with 304 views | eireblue |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:27 - May 10 by sparks |
Of course it is based on science- soft science in the form of psychology and sociology, but science nevertheless. |
If there is science, you will be able to cite it.
Meanwhile from another poster.
"We are writing as behavioural scientists to express concern about the timing of UK delay measures involving social distancing. As is clear from the disaster unfolding in Italy, there is a unique window for delaying the spread of COVID-19. Current government thinking seems to crucially involve the idea of “behavioural fatigue”. This is the worry that, if implemented too early, measures limiting social contact will be undercut just at the point at which they are most required, because people will have tired of the limitations and will revert to prior behaviour —in part precisely because those measures are effective in reducing spread and hence perceived risk.
While we fully support an evidence-based approach to policy that draws on behavioural science, we are not convinced that enough is known about “behavioural fatigue” or to what extent these insights apply to the current exceptional circumstances. Such evidence is necessary if we are to base a high-risk public health strategy on it. In fact, it seems likely that even those essential behaviour changes that are presently required (e.g., handwashing) will receive far greater uptake the more urgent the situation is perceived to be. “Carrying on as normal” for as long as possible undercuts that urgency.
More broadly, it appears that concerns about behavioural fatigue lead the government to believe that halting the spread of the disease is impossible, and the only solution is to slow the progress of the disease across most of the population, until herd immunity is achieved. But radical behaviour change may be able to do much better than this, and would, if successful, save very large numbers of lives. Experience in China and South Korea is sufficiently encouraging to suggest that this possibility should at least be attempted.
If “behavioural fatigue” truly represents a key factor in the government’s decision to delay high-visibility interventions, we urge the government to share an adequate evidence base in support of that decision. If one is lacking, we urge the government to reconsider these decisions.
Signed,
UK Behavioural Scientists | | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:44 - May 10 with 300 views | sparks |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:42 - May 10 by eireblue |
If there is science, you will be able to cite it.
Meanwhile from another poster.
"We are writing as behavioural scientists to express concern about the timing of UK delay measures involving social distancing. As is clear from the disaster unfolding in Italy, there is a unique window for delaying the spread of COVID-19. Current government thinking seems to crucially involve the idea of “behavioural fatigue”. This is the worry that, if implemented too early, measures limiting social contact will be undercut just at the point at which they are most required, because people will have tired of the limitations and will revert to prior behaviour —in part precisely because those measures are effective in reducing spread and hence perceived risk.
While we fully support an evidence-based approach to policy that draws on behavioural science, we are not convinced that enough is known about “behavioural fatigue” or to what extent these insights apply to the current exceptional circumstances. Such evidence is necessary if we are to base a high-risk public health strategy on it. In fact, it seems likely that even those essential behaviour changes that are presently required (e.g., handwashing) will receive far greater uptake the more urgent the situation is perceived to be. “Carrying on as normal” for as long as possible undercuts that urgency.
More broadly, it appears that concerns about behavioural fatigue lead the government to believe that halting the spread of the disease is impossible, and the only solution is to slow the progress of the disease across most of the population, until herd immunity is achieved. But radical behaviour change may be able to do much better than this, and would, if successful, save very large numbers of lives. Experience in China and South Korea is sufficiently encouraging to suggest that this possibility should at least be attempted.
If “behavioural fatigue” truly represents a key factor in the government’s decision to delay high-visibility interventions, we urge the government to share an adequate evidence base in support of that decision. If one is lacking, we urge the government to reconsider these decisions.
Signed,
UK Behavioural Scientists |
Straw man.
It is quite clear that behavioural science was part of the considerations- the CMO explicitly said so- and behavioural sciecne is not non existent- it is a thing, though necessarily far less clear cut than physical science. | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Consensus has not changed on 10:51 - May 10 with 288 views | NotSure |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:25 - May 10 by eireblue |
Which is not based on science.
There has not been a lockdown in the U.K. on which to base any predictions. |
There hasn't been a true lockdown, no.
But if it wasn't for the approach taken by the UK, Sweden and in part the Netherlands, then we would still be believing the totally discredited Imperial College Models. |  | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 11:01 - May 10 with 279 views | eireblue |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:44 - May 10 by sparks |
Straw man.
It is quite clear that behavioural science was part of the considerations- the CMO explicitly said so- and behavioural sciecne is not non existent- it is a thing, though necessarily far less clear cut than physical science. |
Nobody said, behavioural science is not a thing. I have aluded to the importance of it in this thread, contrasting how people communicate important messages. That was part of the SAGE advice. That is your straw man, in suggesting I am not aware of such things.
It is not a straw man to point out that scientists in the field of the “soft science” you cited don’t recognise the term being used as a “thing”.
There is known data, the rate of growth of an exponential virus.
And unknown data.
If there is science, even the “soft” type, based on depreciating rates of lockdown adherence please cite it.
However.
It is not a science based decision to decide how to prevent exponential growth balanced with an unknown factor. | | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 11:10 - May 10 with 271 views | eireblue |
| Consensus has not changed on 10:51 - May 10 by NotSure |
There hasn't been a true lockdown, no.
But if it wasn't for the approach taken by the UK, Sweden and in part the Netherlands, then we would still be believing the totally discredited Imperial College Models. |
“I know nothing about this virus...”
As true today as when you first said it. | | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 11:14 - May 10 with 268 views | lowhouseblue |
the fact is that senior experts in the subject have quite different views. the science is far form settled but policy still needs to be decided. for example (not because i agree with it), epidemiologist professor johan giesecke in the lancet last week:
“… facts have led me to the following conclusions. Everyone will be exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and most people will become infected. COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in all countries, but we do not see it–it almost always spreads from younger people with no or weak symptoms to other people who will also have mild symptoms. This is the real pandemic, but it goes on beneath the surface, and is probably at its peak now in many European countries. There is very little we can do to prevent this spread: a lockdown might delay severe cases for a while, but once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear. I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken.” |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
