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.
From UCL Professor of Global Health and Epidemiology below. If infections are increasing exponentially pre-lockdown, and then there is a slow linear decline during the lockdown phase, then e.g. a 10 day delay in entering lockdown in the exponential phase means the total number of cases & deaths is much higher during lockdown, and also that the lockdown period has to then be much longer to get infections down to a level at which a test>trace>isolate policy can be a feasible means of averting a second wave.
So if they were worried about us getting bored in the lockdown period, then the correct strategy was to lockdown early and build capacity for test>trace>isolate early.
For all those who said in March that UK must wait for lockdown because “people won’t like it so we have to start as late as possibleâ€: if we had locked down 2-3 weeks earlier we would have entered lockdown with only 10% or even 5% of the actual cases we had
It's a tricky old thing this, knowing what to do and when. Do we have any precedents that we should have learned from? Should we have learnt from Spanish Flu, or more recently MERS and SARS?
I'm not sure there is any model for a country like the UK that did not enter a lockdown... all borders are still open, 15,000 people are swanning in through airports every day without testing or quarantine... and private jet hire is actually increasing - added to a disconect between health in the community where the government is ignoring thousands of deaths and in hospital where they are counting them days late and a pitifully understaffed and under-resourced NHS that cannot cope under normal circumstances.
Add in a bunch of contradictory scientists working to fatuous models with no basis in fact and you have the somewhat ineresting situation that countries that acted in their citizens' best interests like NZ and Portugal can claim to be just as in control of their country's pandemic as Sweden who didnt have a lockdown at all.
The problem with locking down two to three weeks earlier than we did is having to justify to the public taking away people's livelihoods and trashing the economy when there are only between a couple of dozen and a couple of hundred known cases in the UK, with between zero and two deaths.
It makes perfect sense if you take the epidemiology on its own, but not if you add in economics and carrying the public's support with you. Which latter is necessary to make things work in this country.
How many people in Britain really believed in the imminent danger of Covid-19 enough on 1st March - or even the 7th, when massed crowds were still going to sports matches and pubs - to have their jobs and income taken away (bear in mind it took weeks to sort out the emergency financial relief measures), then be locked up for a couple of months?
Where I would agree is that the lockdown should have started properly on 13th or 14th March, when the Government brought out the wishy-washy "voluntary social isolation" announcement, rather than a week later when it was clear not enough people were observing it. That was when the worst of the panic buying took place, too.
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 09:25 - Apr 21 by Guthrum
The problem with locking down two to three weeks earlier than we did is having to justify to the public taking away people's livelihoods and trashing the economy when there are only between a couple of dozen and a couple of hundred known cases in the UK, with between zero and two deaths.
It makes perfect sense if you take the epidemiology on its own, but not if you add in economics and carrying the public's support with you. Which latter is necessary to make things work in this country.
How many people in Britain really believed in the imminent danger of Covid-19 enough on 1st March - or even the 7th, when massed crowds were still going to sports matches and pubs - to have their jobs and income taken away (bear in mind it took weeks to sort out the emergency financial relief measures), then be locked up for a couple of months?
Where I would agree is that the lockdown should have started properly on 13th or 14th March, when the Government brought out the wishy-washy "voluntary social isolation" announcement, rather than a week later when it was clear not enough people were observing it. That was when the worst of the panic buying took place, too.
The Prime Minister went to a rugby game at Twickenham on the 7th March, so I agree he couldn't really have shut the country on the 8th March!
I agree that 2-3 weeks is overstating what was politically possible - the 12th March, 10 days earlier was probably feasible.
Assuming doubling of infection every 4 days in this period (a bit lower than the actual rate), that would have lowered the peak infection rate and death rate by about 6 times - a massive difference in terms of getting out of lockdown, and obviously a massive difference to numbers of people dying.
[Post edited 21 Apr 2020 9:41]
5
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 09:38 - Apr 21 with 1279 views
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 09:06 - Apr 21 by GeoffSentence
It's a tricky old thing this, knowing what to do and when. Do we have any precedents that we should have learned from? Should we have learnt from Spanish Flu, or more recently MERS and SARS?
Or from what was happening in Italy and Spain even? If you see a cautionary tale unfolding and realise you're two to three weeks away from being in the same boat it's rather an odd decision to retell the same tale rather than to try and create a different story.
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 09:06 - Apr 21 by GeoffSentence
It's a tricky old thing this, knowing what to do and when. Do we have any precedents that we should have learned from? Should we have learnt from Spanish Flu, or more recently MERS and SARS?
MERS and SARS are totally different because they have a low r0 and thus are not able to spread in the exponential way that C19 is able to spread.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
1
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 09:45 - Apr 21 with 1259 views
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 09:37 - Apr 21 by gordon
The Prime Minister went to a rugby game at Twickenham on the 7th March, so I agree he couldn't really have shut the country on the 8th March!
I agree that 2-3 weeks is overstating what was politically possible - the 12th March, 10 days earlier was probably feasible.
Assuming doubling of infection every 4 days in this period (a bit lower than the actual rate), that would have lowered the peak infection rate and death rate by about 6 times - a massive difference in terms of getting out of lockdown, and obviously a massive difference to numbers of people dying.
[Post edited 21 Apr 2020 9:41]
That didn't help, as it was then apparently used as an excuse to let the Cheltenham Festival go ahead.
Tho, to be fair to the PM, he was far from alone in watching live sport that weekend. Indeed, it might have attracted more adverse comment had he not been there for an important match at Twickenham against our greatest 6 Nations rivals.
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 09:06 - Apr 21 by GeoffSentence
It's a tricky old thing this, knowing what to do and when. Do we have any precedents that we should have learned from? Should we have learnt from Spanish Flu, or more recently MERS and SARS?
If only there'd been an international organisation with 70 years experience dealing with epidemics giving us clear advice on what to do.
4
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 09:52 - Apr 21 with 1249 views
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 09:25 - Apr 21 by Guthrum
The problem with locking down two to three weeks earlier than we did is having to justify to the public taking away people's livelihoods and trashing the economy when there are only between a couple of dozen and a couple of hundred known cases in the UK, with between zero and two deaths.
It makes perfect sense if you take the epidemiology on its own, but not if you add in economics and carrying the public's support with you. Which latter is necessary to make things work in this country.
How many people in Britain really believed in the imminent danger of Covid-19 enough on 1st March - or even the 7th, when massed crowds were still going to sports matches and pubs - to have their jobs and income taken away (bear in mind it took weeks to sort out the emergency financial relief measures), then be locked up for a couple of months?
Where I would agree is that the lockdown should have started properly on 13th or 14th March, when the Government brought out the wishy-washy "voluntary social isolation" announcement, rather than a week later when it was clear not enough people were observing it. That was when the worst of the panic buying took place, too.
On the flip side South Korea and Hong Kong haven't go into a full lockdown based on scientific advise and just asked the population to self distance which they did and have some of the lowest death totals. The fact large sums of people in the UK ignored that same advice is their problem not so much the Gov's, it's called self responsibility. Now you can argue that Countries like HK have had this situation previously with SARS and therefore understand the measures and prepared for it
1
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 10:12 - Apr 21 with 1216 views
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 09:52 - Apr 21 by BloomBlue
On the flip side South Korea and Hong Kong haven't go into a full lockdown based on scientific advise and just asked the population to self distance which they did and have some of the lowest death totals. The fact large sums of people in the UK ignored that same advice is their problem not so much the Gov's, it's called self responsibility. Now you can argue that Countries like HK have had this situation previously with SARS and therefore understand the measures and prepared for it
It is without doubt far east countries are used to this and they also know that if they disobey the government they are for the chop.
We in the west never really got that concerned until Italy took off.
Germany locked down just one day before us.
[Post edited 21 Apr 2020 10:19]
“Hello, I'm your MP. Actually I'm not. I'm your candidate. Gosh.”
Boris Johnson canvassing in Henley, 2005.
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 09:38 - Apr 21 by Herbivore
Or from what was happening in Italy and Spain even? If you see a cautionary tale unfolding and realise you're two to three weeks away from being in the same boat it's rather an odd decision to retell the same tale rather than to try and create a different story.
On the conspiracy thread you were advocating taking advice from experts. As Sunak said last night the government made "the right decisions at the right time, according to the scientific advice we received".
You may agree or disagree with it. But the strategy of flattening the curve to protect NHS capacity has worked. The nightmare of people dying in ambulances and corridors because there were no beds or ventilators in Italy has thankfully not happened here.
I asked these 2 questions a couple of days ago, and so far haven't recieved an answer. Perhaps you'll oblige herbie?
Do you want Ministers to follow the advice of their experts at a time of national crisis, or not?
If Johnson had announced that the country was being placed under the most draconian lock-down in peacetime against the advice of his senior science and medical advisers, would you have happily accepted that or would you have been on here crying that we are "sleepwalking into fascism" and that the "Brexiteers don't listen to experts"?
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 10:19 - Apr 21 by GlasgowBlue
On the conspiracy thread you were advocating taking advice from experts. As Sunak said last night the government made "the right decisions at the right time, according to the scientific advice we received".
You may agree or disagree with it. But the strategy of flattening the curve to protect NHS capacity has worked. The nightmare of people dying in ambulances and corridors because there were no beds or ventilators in Italy has thankfully not happened here.
I asked these 2 questions a couple of days ago, and so far haven't recieved an answer. Perhaps you'll oblige herbie?
Do you want Ministers to follow the advice of their experts at a time of national crisis, or not?
If Johnson had announced that the country was being placed under the most draconian lock-down in peacetime against the advice of his senior science and medical advisers, would you have happily accepted that or would you have been on here crying that we are "sleepwalking into fascism" and that the "Brexiteers don't listen to experts"?
This was covered in the thread you posted those questions on. You have a very naive conception of the relationship between the government and its advisers.
Let’s roll the clocks forward to a date sometime in the future.
There are rumors of deaths in China from an unknown virus. The government, remembering what happened in 2020, react quickly when people become ill with similar symptoms, all borders are closed as are pubs, restaurants and non essential shops. This time the virus mutates, they often do, and becomes relatively harmless.
Can you imagine the uproar, accusations of overreacting abound. Claims in the press that unnecessary harm has been done to the economy, money has been wasted. Why take notice of experts after all how often do we get warned about heavy snowfall that comes to nothing.
Any government will always seek guidance from experts and follow that advice. It is the only sensible thing to do.
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 10:33 - Apr 21 by Pinewoodblue
Let’s roll the clocks forward to a date sometime in the future.
There are rumors of deaths in China from an unknown virus. The government, remembering what happened in 2020, react quickly when people become ill with similar symptoms, all borders are closed as are pubs, restaurants and non essential shops. This time the virus mutates, they often do, and becomes relatively harmless.
Can you imagine the uproar, accusations of overreacting abound. Claims in the press that unnecessary harm has been done to the economy, money has been wasted. Why take notice of experts after all how often do we get warned about heavy snowfall that comes to nothing.
Any government will always seek guidance from experts and follow that advice. It is the only sensible thing to do.
[Post edited 21 Apr 2020 10:34]
There are definitely a lot of wider considerations. How do people think we're a part of a society that has a relatively high quality of life, long life expectancy, access to medicine, technological and scientific advancements in terms healthcare, compared to other less developed nations? It's the result of a healthy economy, that generates sufficient funds to appropriately invest in such things. For every day the lockdown is in place it's costing the economy close to £3bn. Job losses and unemployment are one of many contributors to mental health. Suicide is the biggest killer of men under 40 in the UK.
I'm not saying we locked down too late, too soon, or just right, but the reality is the 'true' right answer is a) almost impossible to truly quantify and b) certainly not able to be evaluated until way down the line.
1
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 10:48 - Apr 21 with 1111 views
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 10:33 - Apr 21 by Pinewoodblue
Let’s roll the clocks forward to a date sometime in the future.
There are rumors of deaths in China from an unknown virus. The government, remembering what happened in 2020, react quickly when people become ill with similar symptoms, all borders are closed as are pubs, restaurants and non essential shops. This time the virus mutates, they often do, and becomes relatively harmless.
Can you imagine the uproar, accusations of overreacting abound. Claims in the press that unnecessary harm has been done to the economy, money has been wasted. Why take notice of experts after all how often do we get warned about heavy snowfall that comes to nothing.
Any government will always seek guidance from experts and follow that advice. It is the only sensible thing to do.
[Post edited 21 Apr 2020 10:34]
That's not really comparable. We had the benefit of seeing what was happening in other countries where the virus was a few weeks ahead in terms of spread and we sat on our hands.
there are two myths people are starting to peddle. one is that all scientists agree on what the science implies. the second is that perfect government is possible - whereas in truth any government of any party or in any time period which gets 80% of stuff right is doing exceptionally well.
anyway, as an economist, it is reassuring to find out that if you put the same question to two epidemiologists you get three answers.
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
-1
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 11:39 - Apr 21 with 996 views
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 10:32 - Apr 21 by Herbivore
This was covered in the thread you posted those questions on. You have a very naive conception of the relationship between the government and its advisers.
More generally, that style of argument where complex issuess are reduced to a binary 'yes / no' 'answer the question!' style of interaction really doesn't facilitate grown up, informed discussion. The intention is effectively to close down debate around certain topics.
0
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 11:43 - Apr 21 with 961 views
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 11:39 - Apr 21 by gordon
More generally, that style of argument where complex issuess are reduced to a binary 'yes / no' 'answer the question!' style of interaction really doesn't facilitate grown up, informed discussion. The intention is effectively to close down debate around certain topics.
Exactly. Complex issues can rarely be meaningfully engaged with through demanding answers to simplistic yes or no questions.
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 11:39 - Apr 21 by gordon
More generally, that style of argument where complex issuess are reduced to a binary 'yes / no' 'answer the question!' style of interaction really doesn't facilitate grown up, informed discussion. The intention is effectively to close down debate around certain topics.
Allied to this is the constant need to state the credentials of said expert. Science is based on evidence not credentials, the constant stating of CMO, CSO, 'senior' scientist as a way adding weight to an argument is becoming tiresome.
You make a good point in your OP about nonlinearities, I was interested in your take on something Alison McLean said yesterday about behavioural scientists using past behaviour to predict the future - is this true, and if so, even possible?
0
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 12:21 - Apr 21 with 905 views
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 11:07 - Apr 21 by lowhouseblue
there are two myths people are starting to peddle. one is that all scientists agree on what the science implies. the second is that perfect government is possible - whereas in truth any government of any party or in any time period which gets 80% of stuff right is doing exceptionally well.
anyway, as an economist, it is reassuring to find out that if you put the same question to two epidemiologists you get three answers.
It's interesting to see apologists for government policy starting to move along the standard spectrum:
1: There are no mistakes 2: There might have been mistakes, but everyone makes mistakes 3: Mistakes were made but it was impossible not to make mistakes 4: It isn't helpful to point out that mistakes were made 5: Stop gloating about the mistakes that were made 6: The real reason mistakes were made is because people wanted them to fail all along
0
This is the key issue around lockdown timing on 13:07 - Apr 21 with 852 views
In that tweet, there isn’t a scientific disagreement.
See, this is why politicians, like you have been, can say they are guided by scientists, but can still make simple errors.
There is nothing contradictory about saying draconian measures can be stopped and a second wave is probable.
The mistake you and Boris could make is acting on the first piece of advice, without appropriately considering the second piece of advice especially if your bias and judgment was to ensure the economy starts up again.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
