| Consensus has not changed on 08:36 - May 10 with 1287 views | 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? |  |
|  |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:42 - May 10 with 1256 views | BlueBadger |
| 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? |
In the fine tradition of the last ten years of government, they were striving for policy based evidence rather than evidence based policy. |  |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:43 - May 10 with 1251 views | bluelagos |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:42 - May 10 by BlueBadger |
In the fine tradition of the last ten years of government, they were striving for policy based evidence rather than evidence based policy. |
Seems hard to conclude otherwise. | |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:43 - May 10 with 1253 views | GlasgowBlue |
| 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? |
It also contradicts the SAGE members who went public and said Cummings was pushing for an earlier lockdown.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-28/top-aide-to-u-k-s-johnson-pus
Which also contradicts the government’s statement that Cummings was only a bystander, but slightly funny when a few on here realise that they been on Cummings’ side of the argument rather than that of the SAGE scientists all this time. [Post edited 10 May 2020 8:44]
|  |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:43 - May 10 with 1251 views | manchego |
| 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? |
You just need to shop around until you find the scientist who says anything which supports what you wanted to do in the first place.
Then you can claim you were following the science. |  | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:47 - May 10 with 1229 views | TractorWood |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:43 - May 10 by manchego |
You just need to shop around until you find the scientist who says anything which supports what you wanted to do in the first place.
Then you can claim you were following the science. |
They followed the science until another piece of science said 500k people would die from their first piece of science. So they changed the science they follow.
But they always follow the science. |  |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:49 - May 10 with 1210 views | bluelagos |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:43 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
It also contradicts the SAGE members who went public and said Cummings was pushing for an earlier lockdown.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-28/top-aide-to-u-k-s-johnson-pus
Which also contradicts the government’s statement that Cummings was only a bystander, but slightly funny when a few on here realise that they been on Cummings’ side of the argument rather than that of the SAGE scientists all this time. [Post edited 10 May 2020 8:44]
|
Interesting link there Glassers, not read that before. Does appear that Cummings was influential and does indeed contradict the quotation in the Guardian article as to what the science said in early March.
Guess only once they publish unredacted minutes will it be clearer. | |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:56 - May 10 with 1183 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:49 - May 10 by bluelagos |
Interesting link there Glassers, not read that before. Does appear that Cummings was influential and does indeed contradict the quotation in the Guardian article as to what the science said in early March.
Guess only once they publish unredacted minutes will it be clearer. |
Is Dr Thibaut Jombart, or the people he is saying advised the government to lockdown earlier, a member of SAGE or is he one of a number of scientists who were calling for an earlier lockdown independently if the governments official advisers and SAGE? The article doesn’t make this clear.
I’ve read the link from the Guardian and there is no mention of the 25 scientists advising an earlier lockdown. Just this quote:
“In early March 2020, the emerging consensus amongst scientists involved in this country-wide consultation was that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating widely in the UK, it was capable of causing substantial hospitalisations and fatalities, and that in the absence of drastic social distancing measures, the healthcare system would rapidly become overwhelmed in the same way that it had been in Northern Italy at the time”.
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vSxP91cr4TOPVi9gwW4mGL9BL2wyQAVj
What has become clear is that the NHS did not rapidly become overwhelmed in the same way that it had been in Northern Italy.
I dont believe we will know for at least another year to 18 months whether the timing of our lockdown was correct.
Edit. Re the redacted minutes. Completely agree that these should be published. But only when we come out the other side. And as part of a wide ranging independent inquiry in the handling of the pandemic.
I think it’s counter productive to carry out an inquiry when we are still in the very early stages of this pandemic.
The science is changing everyday as is the response. We still know very little about this disease. Remember when ventilators were seen as the holy grail. Now the science guests otherwise. [Post edited 10 May 2020 9:06]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Consensus has not changed on 09:04 - May 10 with 1147 views | bluelagos |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:56 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
Is Dr Thibaut Jombart, or the people he is saying advised the government to lockdown earlier, a member of SAGE or is he one of a number of scientists who were calling for an earlier lockdown independently if the governments official advisers and SAGE? The article doesn’t make this clear.
I’ve read the link from the Guardian and there is no mention of the 25 scientists advising an earlier lockdown. Just this quote:
“In early March 2020, the emerging consensus amongst scientists involved in this country-wide consultation was that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating widely in the UK, it was capable of causing substantial hospitalisations and fatalities, and that in the absence of drastic social distancing measures, the healthcare system would rapidly become overwhelmed in the same way that it had been in Northern Italy at the time”.
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vSxP91cr4TOPVi9gwW4mGL9BL2wyQAVj
What has become clear is that the NHS did not rapidly become overwhelmed in the same way that it had been in Northern Italy.
I dont believe we will know for at least another year to 18 months whether the timing of our lockdown was correct.
Edit. Re the redacted minutes. Completely agree that these should be published. But only when we come out the other side. And as part of a wide ranging independent inquiry in the handling of the pandemic.
I think it’s counter productive to carry out an inquiry when we are still in the very early stages of this pandemic.
The science is changing everyday as is the response. We still know very little about this disease. Remember when ventilators were seen as the holy grail. Now the science guests otherwise. [Post edited 10 May 2020 9:06]
|
How can it have been right to delay? I don't see any scenario where allowing a virus to spread widely, as we did in early March, is good? I don't understand the logic. | |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:07 - May 10 with 1136 views | Darth_Koont |
| 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? |
The problem is that the government hasn't been clear on the science from the beginning. Nor the lack of emergency preparedness that actually defines our response even more than the pandemic modelling. The picture only begins to become clearer after the fact.
On a related note, the revelation that thousands of tests needed to be flown to the US last week to be processed directly contradicts the PM's statement also last week that the testing "capacity currently exceeds demand".
They're literally winging it. |  |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:09 - May 10 with 1124 views | m14_blue |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:43 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
It also contradicts the SAGE members who went public and said Cummings was pushing for an earlier lockdown.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-28/top-aide-to-u-k-s-johnson-pus
Which also contradicts the government’s statement that Cummings was only a bystander, but slightly funny when a few on here realise that they been on Cummings’ side of the argument rather than that of the SAGE scientists all this time. [Post edited 10 May 2020 8:44]
|
That reflects incredibly poorly on the government’s position imo.
I was particularly supportive of their actions early on as they repeatedly and consistently emphasised that they were following the advice of their experts.
If it now transpires, as your link seems to suggest, that they were trying to influence and putting pressure on those scientists then that puts an entirely different complexion on things.
Particularly when the person applying that pressure is an unelected bureaucrat with no background in epidemiology at all.
The inevitable public inquiry could be extremely interesting (but they probably won’t release the findings anyway). |  | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:12 - May 10 with 1107 views | Guthrum |
| 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? |
The problem that governments have is that they've got to balance the epidemiology with the economy and with the practicalities of what they can get the public to accept.
Would you have taken a Spanish-style total lockdown (virtually no outside activity) when we only had 35 known cases and zero deaths (without using hindsight)? One which might still have gone on just as long? Without time to put business help measures in place (Sunak had only been in office a fortnight)? That is what the science was recommending. |  |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:14 - May 10 with 1089 views | Herbivore |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:56 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
Is Dr Thibaut Jombart, or the people he is saying advised the government to lockdown earlier, a member of SAGE or is he one of a number of scientists who were calling for an earlier lockdown independently if the governments official advisers and SAGE? The article doesn’t make this clear.
I’ve read the link from the Guardian and there is no mention of the 25 scientists advising an earlier lockdown. Just this quote:
“In early March 2020, the emerging consensus amongst scientists involved in this country-wide consultation was that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating widely in the UK, it was capable of causing substantial hospitalisations and fatalities, and that in the absence of drastic social distancing measures, the healthcare system would rapidly become overwhelmed in the same way that it had been in Northern Italy at the time”.
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vSxP91cr4TOPVi9gwW4mGL9BL2wyQAVj
What has become clear is that the NHS did not rapidly become overwhelmed in the same way that it had been in Northern Italy.
I dont believe we will know for at least another year to 18 months whether the timing of our lockdown was correct.
Edit. Re the redacted minutes. Completely agree that these should be published. But only when we come out the other side. And as part of a wide ranging independent inquiry in the handling of the pandemic.
I think it’s counter productive to carry out an inquiry when we are still in the very early stages of this pandemic.
The science is changing everyday as is the response. We still know very little about this disease. Remember when ventilators were seen as the holy grail. Now the science guests otherwise. [Post edited 10 May 2020 9:06]
|
Is upwards of 30k deaths and rising not sufficient to say that we probably didn't time lockdown right? |  |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:14 - May 10 with 1085 views | StokieBlue |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:49 - May 10 by bluelagos |
Interesting link there Glassers, not read that before. Does appear that Cummings was influential and does indeed contradict the quotation in the Guardian article as to what the science said in early March.
Guess only once they publish unredacted minutes will it be clearer. |
Agree that he shouldn't have been attempting to influence as that article outlines.
Interestingly though, wasn't he pushing for an earlier lockdown (from that article) which is what a lot of people have been saying should have been done?
Still, that's not really the point, he shouldn't have been applying pressure.
SB |  |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:17 - May 10 with 1070 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:04 - May 10 by bluelagos |
How can it have been right to delay? I don't see any scenario where allowing a virus to spread widely, as we did in early March, is good? I don't understand the logic. |
The strategy, as set out by Valance and Whitty, was always about timing the lockdown to start a few weeks before the peak whilst ensuring that leak was at a number that didn’t overwhelm
NHS capacity. They explained that if we went too soon thane lockdown fatigue would set in (which we are seeing as each day passes) infection rates would go up and the NHS would collapse as it did in Italy.
Remember the footage of the Italian field hospitals that resembled a scene from M*A*S*H? Or the footage of people dying on the floor in Italian hospitals due to the lack of beds? And being told that if this could happen in one of the best funded healthcare systems in Europe then what chance did the “underfunded NHS” have?
These are the questions that came into play when it was decided in the timing of the lockdown. From what the SAGE whistleblowers are saying is that the scientists didn’t bend to government inter fence and made there decision based in what they thought was the best outcome.
As I said, we won’t know if this was right or wrong for at least another year to 18 months, ince we have coped with the second and possibly third waves. Did that extra couple of weeks build up sine extra herd immunity to cope with a second wave? [Post edited 10 May 2020 9:18]
| |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:17 - May 10 with 1073 views | blueblueburleymcgrew |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:04 - May 10 by bluelagos |
How can it have been right to delay? I don't see any scenario where allowing a virus to spread widely, as we did in early March, is good? I don't understand the logic. |
I always understood the decision was timed around allowing the NHS to prepare so as not to be overwhelmed and to control the severity of a second wave/spike. Earlier and the hospital scenes would have been similar to those seen in Italian and Spanish hospitals.
I think there was also concern that the fraying of lockdown as we saw this weekend would have come earlier and coincide with the spike.
Not saying it was right but at least the NHS seems to be coping. |  | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:19 - May 10 with 1050 views | Guthrum |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:43 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
It also contradicts the SAGE members who went public and said Cummings was pushing for an earlier lockdown.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-28/top-aide-to-u-k-s-johnson-pus
Which also contradicts the government’s statement that Cummings was only a bystander, but slightly funny when a few on here realise that they been on Cummings’ side of the argument rather than that of the SAGE scientists all this time. [Post edited 10 May 2020 8:44]
|
What this really highlights is that virtually all governments are, in reality, more or less chaotic, muddling through from crisis to crisis. We just don't always get to see quite as much of that out in the open.
Even those who set out with a concrete plan fall into shambles when practicalities or unforseen events get in the way.
I'm not sure whether this administration is even a particularly bad example, they have just been put under an especially harsh spotlight with Brexit and the Covid-19 outbreak. | |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:20 - May 10 with 1034 views | Herbivore |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:17 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
The strategy, as set out by Valance and Whitty, was always about timing the lockdown to start a few weeks before the peak whilst ensuring that leak was at a number that didn’t overwhelm
NHS capacity. They explained that if we went too soon thane lockdown fatigue would set in (which we are seeing as each day passes) infection rates would go up and the NHS would collapse as it did in Italy.
Remember the footage of the Italian field hospitals that resembled a scene from M*A*S*H? Or the footage of people dying on the floor in Italian hospitals due to the lack of beds? And being told that if this could happen in one of the best funded healthcare systems in Europe then what chance did the “underfunded NHS” have?
These are the questions that came into play when it was decided in the timing of the lockdown. From what the SAGE whistleblowers are saying is that the scientists didn’t bend to government inter fence and made there decision based in what they thought was the best outcome.
As I said, we won’t know if this was right or wrong for at least another year to 18 months, ince we have coped with the second and possibly third waves. Did that extra couple of weeks build up sine extra herd immunity to cope with a second wave? [Post edited 10 May 2020 9:18]
|
You've gone full apologist on this. | |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:21 - May 10 with 1022 views | blueblueburleymcgrew |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:56 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
Is Dr Thibaut Jombart, or the people he is saying advised the government to lockdown earlier, a member of SAGE or is he one of a number of scientists who were calling for an earlier lockdown independently if the governments official advisers and SAGE? The article doesn’t make this clear.
I’ve read the link from the Guardian and there is no mention of the 25 scientists advising an earlier lockdown. Just this quote:
“In early March 2020, the emerging consensus amongst scientists involved in this country-wide consultation was that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating widely in the UK, it was capable of causing substantial hospitalisations and fatalities, and that in the absence of drastic social distancing measures, the healthcare system would rapidly become overwhelmed in the same way that it had been in Northern Italy at the time”.
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vSxP91cr4TOPVi9gwW4mGL9BL2wyQAVj
What has become clear is that the NHS did not rapidly become overwhelmed in the same way that it had been in Northern Italy.
I dont believe we will know for at least another year to 18 months whether the timing of our lockdown was correct.
Edit. Re the redacted minutes. Completely agree that these should be published. But only when we come out the other side. And as part of a wide ranging independent inquiry in the handling of the pandemic.
I think it’s counter productive to carry out an inquiry when we are still in the very early stages of this pandemic.
The science is changing everyday as is the response. We still know very little about this disease. Remember when ventilators were seen as the holy grail. Now the science guests otherwise. [Post edited 10 May 2020 9:06]
|
Jambart is not a SAGE member.
So little known about Covid-19 but so much opinion and so many experts all speaking out responding to people desperate for clarity, it is very hard to make any sense of it all and we still don’t know what happens next, what the future of living with this looks like. | | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:22 - May 10 with 1011 views | eireblue |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:17 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
The strategy, as set out by Valance and Whitty, was always about timing the lockdown to start a few weeks before the peak whilst ensuring that leak was at a number that didn’t overwhelm
NHS capacity. They explained that if we went too soon thane lockdown fatigue would set in (which we are seeing as each day passes) infection rates would go up and the NHS would collapse as it did in Italy.
Remember the footage of the Italian field hospitals that resembled a scene from M*A*S*H? Or the footage of people dying on the floor in Italian hospitals due to the lack of beds? And being told that if this could happen in one of the best funded healthcare systems in Europe then what chance did the “underfunded NHS” have?
These are the questions that came into play when it was decided in the timing of the lockdown. From what the SAGE whistleblowers are saying is that the scientists didn’t bend to government inter fence and made there decision based in what they thought was the best outcome.
As I said, we won’t know if this was right or wrong for at least another year to 18 months, ince we have coped with the second and possibly third waves. Did that extra couple of weeks build up sine extra herd immunity to cope with a second wave? [Post edited 10 May 2020 9:18]
|
There is no science on “lockdown fatigue”, only opinion. |  | | |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:23 - May 10 with 1002 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:14 - May 10 by Herbivore |
Is upwards of 30k deaths and rising not sufficient to say that we probably didn't time lockdown right? |
I’m not giving an opinion either way because as I say, we won’t know until this is all over. All I have said from the beginning I’m following the advice if the CMO and CSA because they know far more about this than I do.
Based in whether this pandemic will hit in one wave over a three month period then disappear, I would say we should have gone earlier.
Do you believe that covid is showing any signs of being a three month virus? | |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:23 - May 10 with 1006 views | Guthrum |
| Consensus has not changed on 08:56 - May 10 by GlasgowBlue |
Is Dr Thibaut Jombart, or the people he is saying advised the government to lockdown earlier, a member of SAGE or is he one of a number of scientists who were calling for an earlier lockdown independently if the governments official advisers and SAGE? The article doesn’t make this clear.
I’ve read the link from the Guardian and there is no mention of the 25 scientists advising an earlier lockdown. Just this quote:
“In early March 2020, the emerging consensus amongst scientists involved in this country-wide consultation was that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating widely in the UK, it was capable of causing substantial hospitalisations and fatalities, and that in the absence of drastic social distancing measures, the healthcare system would rapidly become overwhelmed in the same way that it had been in Northern Italy at the time”.
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vSxP91cr4TOPVi9gwW4mGL9BL2wyQAVj
What has become clear is that the NHS did not rapidly become overwhelmed in the same way that it had been in Northern Italy.
I dont believe we will know for at least another year to 18 months whether the timing of our lockdown was correct.
Edit. Re the redacted minutes. Completely agree that these should be published. But only when we come out the other side. And as part of a wide ranging independent inquiry in the handling of the pandemic.
I think it’s counter productive to carry out an inquiry when we are still in the very early stages of this pandemic.
The science is changing everyday as is the response. We still know very little about this disease. Remember when ventilators were seen as the holy grail. Now the science guests otherwise. [Post edited 10 May 2020 9:06]
|
There is probably a lot still to come out about many aspects of this outbreak. [Post edited 10 May 2020 9:26]
| |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:26 - May 10 with 974 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:09 - May 10 by m14_blue |
That reflects incredibly poorly on the government’s position imo.
I was particularly supportive of their actions early on as they repeatedly and consistently emphasised that they were following the advice of their experts.
If it now transpires, as your link seems to suggest, that they were trying to influence and putting pressure on those scientists then that puts an entirely different complexion on things.
Particularly when the person applying that pressure is an unelected bureaucrat with no background in epidemiology at all.
The inevitable public inquiry could be extremely interesting (but they probably won’t release the findings anyway). |
I agree that it reflects poorly in the government and contradicts their statement that Cummings was just an observer.
But I take a lot of heart from it that the experts basically ignored what he said and gave their own independent advice regarding the timing if the lockdown.
This contradicts people who were accusing the CMO and CSA of being “in the pay of the government” and bullied into giving advice that the government wanted to hear. [Post edited 10 May 2020 9:32]
| |
| |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:29 - May 10 with 947 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Consensus has not changed on 09:20 - May 10 by Herbivore |
You've gone full apologist on this. |
And absolutely pathetic response from you. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
