By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
“What we’re not talking about in the same formal, quantitative way are the economic costs, the social costs, the psychological costs of being under lockdown,” he said. “I understand that the government is being advised by economists, psychiatrists and others, but we’re not seeing what that science is telling them. I find that very puzzling.” Woolhouse said that while it was understandable that saving lives was the top priority, the idea of doing this at any cost was naive.
This is it in a nutshell for me. I have said from the start that the effects of the lockdown will be worse than the disease itself and I stand by that. It's good to see more and more top scientists and professors speaking out and asking questions.
0
Twtd leading the way again on 08:16 - Apr 24 with 1145 views
Twtd leading the way again on 08:01 - Apr 24 by Harry_Palmer
“What we’re not talking about in the same formal, quantitative way are the economic costs, the social costs, the psychological costs of being under lockdown,” he said. “I understand that the government is being advised by economists, psychiatrists and others, but we’re not seeing what that science is telling them. I find that very puzzling.” Woolhouse said that while it was understandable that saving lives was the top priority, the idea of doing this at any cost was naive.
This is it in a nutshell for me. I have said from the start that the effects of the lockdown will be worse than the disease itself and I stand by that. It's good to see more and more top scientists and professors speaking out and asking questions.
For me, I just think they are hiding behind the phrase "led by the science".
The decisions always were way more nuanced that just the science. The science is just one part of the decision making. Plus of course the science is changing and not consistent.
It is almost as if they have come up with another slogan that they trot out and this is now used to stifle debate and stop anyone questioning the decisions they have made.
These are incredibly hard decisions, but to avoid scrutiny / debate doesn't sit well with me.
Twtd leading the way again on 08:16 - Apr 24 by bluelagos
For me, I just think they are hiding behind the phrase "led by the science".
The decisions always were way more nuanced that just the science. The science is just one part of the decision making. Plus of course the science is changing and not consistent.
It is almost as if they have come up with another slogan that they trot out and this is now used to stifle debate and stop anyone questioning the decisions they have made.
These are incredibly hard decisions, but to avoid scrutiny / debate doesn't sit well with me.
What we've been seeing from the UK government a lot is 'policy-based evidence' rather than 'evidence based policy'.
It's why we still have privatised public services, for example.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
Twtd leading the way again on 08:01 - Apr 24 by Harry_Palmer
“What we’re not talking about in the same formal, quantitative way are the economic costs, the social costs, the psychological costs of being under lockdown,” he said. “I understand that the government is being advised by economists, psychiatrists and others, but we’re not seeing what that science is telling them. I find that very puzzling.” Woolhouse said that while it was understandable that saving lives was the top priority, the idea of doing this at any cost was naive.
This is it in a nutshell for me. I have said from the start that the effects of the lockdown will be worse than the disease itself and I stand by that. It's good to see more and more top scientists and professors speaking out and asking questions.
But that's the problem for all Governments in all Countries lock-down too long and you may reduce CV deaths but conversely you'll increase deaths with cancer, domestic violence etc. I think the increase in domestic violence some hospitals are reporting is disgusting, it seems to be an acceptable collateral damage in many people's eyes to save more people catching CV
What annoys me with all these scientists is they all disagree with each other, oh for a group of scientist who can all agree on something for once. All I see is scientists group A saying we need to do # and scientist group B saying the opposite.
0
Twtd leading the way again on 12:12 - Apr 24 with 1027 views
Twtd leading the way again on 11:05 - Apr 24 by BlueBadger
What we've been seeing from the UK government a lot is 'policy-based evidence' rather than 'evidence based policy'.
It's why we still have privatised public services, for example.
What do you do in the NHS? I have two daughters who work in the NHS in Essex as vesculiar surgeon's. I have another daughter who is a junior doctor, who is currently working in a hospital in South Africa.
0
Twtd leading the way again on 12:14 - Apr 24 with 1024 views
Twtd leading the way again on 08:01 - Apr 24 by Harry_Palmer
“What we’re not talking about in the same formal, quantitative way are the economic costs, the social costs, the psychological costs of being under lockdown,” he said. “I understand that the government is being advised by economists, psychiatrists and others, but we’re not seeing what that science is telling them. I find that very puzzling.” Woolhouse said that while it was understandable that saving lives was the top priority, the idea of doing this at any cost was naive.
This is it in a nutshell for me. I have said from the start that the effects of the lockdown will be worse than the disease itself and I stand by that. It's good to see more and more top scientists and professors speaking out and asking questions.
I saw somebody do a calculation based on a life expectancy prediction, see here, it starts at 9 minutes:
This is for the USA rather than the UK. I can't say how accurate a call this is as I'm no mathematician. I can say this though, the figure he arrived at was absolutely shocking. Therefore, hopefully it's wildly incorrect!
I'll have a read of that over lunch. My view on this has been that there's a difference between taking a scientific approach (which is what 'following the science' implies to me) and listening to the views of a restricted pool of scientists, no matter how senior they are. The two are not the same, although I don't know which we've been doing. Maybe this article will provide some answers.
My three favourite TWTD “are you literally thick or is your cock that hard for the Tories?” posts the last month have been...
But Corbyn. Oh so you know more than the scientists now. Political point scoring.
Money says the fourth will be “Easy to say in hindsight” and I’ll be sure to link them to the posts highlighting the problems weeks ago where the same people used the previous three arguments.
Twtd leading the way again on 11:05 - Apr 24 by BlueBadger
What we've been seeing from the UK government a lot is 'policy-based evidence' rather than 'evidence based policy'.
It's why we still have privatised public services, for example.
My money is still on steering the science or cherry picking options from them.
In my line of work there’s always plan A (the perfect solution) then B, C and D that are less than perfect and have many risks. A client could say plan A is too much and request other plans which follow their own bias/needs. They’re still trusting the expert and following the advice but the advice has been compromised.
Twtd leading the way again on 12:14 - Apr 24 by midastouch
I saw somebody do a calculation based on a life expectancy prediction, see here, it starts at 9 minutes:
This is for the USA rather than the UK. I can't say how accurate a call this is as I'm no mathematician. I can say this though, the figure he arrived at was absolutely shocking. Therefore, hopefully it's wildly incorrect!
[Post edited 24 Apr 2020 12:21]
I can see the logic in what's he's doing. Even if you knocked the underlying numbers down, so put the life expectancy figure down by perhaps half the amount he's doing and don't multiply by the entire population (as perhaps best to err on the side of caution). I haven't got my calculator to hand but it would be interesting to know what even much lower base figures would extrapolate out to. Compare it to the number of current Covid-19 deaths (or projected number of deaths in the USA) and I think it might well still be food for thought. To be fair to Maloney he's made some incredible calls down the years. Take this one, he said oil prices would collapse to $10 ten years ago at a keynote speech in Russia. See here, he says about $10 oil in part 2.
He was almost laughed at back then. Well nobody is laughing at him now!
I've been stuck in the house all day getting my VAT return ready and have been watching the the select committee that was/is being broadcast live on the news today.
Chris Whitty covers everything your short article raises in great forensic detail. Also the CMO's of the devolved nations singing from the same hymn sheet.
You'll learn more about the science and advice by watching this sitting than you will from the daily press conference of articles in the Guardian.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
