Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[elbows]

Your last two posts just illustrate the contempt in which they hold their audience. Maybe, just maybe, if they had been upfront and honest all along, they wouldn't look like such cunts now.

If I ever sound frustrated during conversations on this front, its because the vast bulk of what I describe is establishment business as usual, and could be studied throughout large periods of history. The attitudes are all around, in normal times as well as exceptional times, and can be clearly seen in all manner of official documents from all sorts of corners of the establishment. And yet, when this stuff is thrust into the spotlight during some crisis, large numbers of people always seem surprised, and I feel compelled to go on and on about various details of how it works. I dont really get it, most of us have at least observed public inquiries on some matter or another, a lot of what I go on about shows up in evidence and lessons learnt, and subsequent inquiries about why the lessons to be learnt werent, and made very little difference to the establishment way of doing things. And we are familiar with bureaucracy and management failings and dodgy budget priorities and echo chambers and propaganda and meaningless reassurances and small cogs in big machines not questioning the established wisdom and people nailing themselves to the mast and going down with the ship.

 

[two sheds]

But if you think about chains of transmission, then the 80% who are immune have a notable impact on what proportion of the 20% who arent actually end up having opportunities to get infected.

And the results of this stuff, unless exceptionally successful or dealing with a disease that really can be cornered, is also a numbers game. It doesnt stop absolutely every person getting infected, but it stops things reaching anything close to epidemic scale, and that alone is enough to keep huge numbers of people safe.

Some of the logic of this stuff is also why pandemics are big scary things with huge consequences in the first place. Its all about the scale and their terrifying total potential to do harm because nobody is immune, all the numbers are on the side of the virus. Once the numbers are well below epidemic level, the very same virus, without needing to undergo any changes to its deadlines, doesnt end up posing the same burden to humanity at all.

Yes fair enough. But surely the way is to test people, isolate anyone who's been in contact (as they should have been doing from the start with people coming into the country), and keep the numbers as small as possible while building up the NHS ability to cope.

I still see those graphs with peaks of cases drawn above a horizontal line showing NHS beds as hugely at fault. They gave a massively optimistic view of the NHS's ability to cope, making it look like they were following the right strategy.

Keep numbers absolutely down to a minimum while you work on vaccines and treatment, surely.

 

[Azrael]

It's not so surprising, though. He's not really 'Britain's top scientist'. That would be someone who has absolutely no interest in working for the govt. Too busy doing science. He's a political appointment. 'Britain's most clubbable scientist', perhaps (or is that 'pliable'?). It's depressing, but it's not so different from the govt-appointed lawyer finding a legal excuse to go to war - if it's war they want, the lawyer will find it's legal miraculously.

We saw what happens to govt-appointed scientists who say things the govt doesn't want with Proffesor Nutt. Did they heed his advice? No, they sacked him.

It undoubtedly takes a certain kind of person to do the job, but his resume's extremely impressive, and these roles have traditionally gone to leaders in their fields, as Vallance is. The example of the wonderfully named David Nutt just goes to show that advisors have traditionally maintained their independence. He went further than most, but others have quietly directed policy away from bad science. Vallance could be doing this without speaking out as Nutt did, but he isn't.

 

[mauvais]

Someone should mention the idea of universal basic income to the fuck-ups responsible for this shit show. This is not some Guardian or some lefty paper writing about the government's totally fucking things up, it's FT.

Article link

The FT aren't averse to criticising the establishment. I wouldn't like to try and pin down their prevailing political leanings but in practice it's probably not quite what you think.

 

[Azrael]

If I ever sound frustrated during conversations on this front, its because the vast bulk of what I describe is establishment business as usual, and could be studied throughout large periods of history. The attitudes are all around, in normal times as well as exceptional times, and can be clearly seen in all manner of official documents from all sorts of corners of the establishment. And yet, when this stuff is thrust into the spotlight during some crisis, large numbers of people always seem surprised, and I feel compelled to go on and on about various details of how it works. I dont really get it, most of us have at least observed public inquiries on some matter or another, a lot of what I go on about shows up in evidence and lessons learnt, and subsequent inquiries about why the lessons to be learnt werent, and made very little difference to the establishment way of doing things. And we are familiar with bureaucracy and management failings and dodgy budget priorities and echo chambers and propaganda and meaningless reassurances and small cogs in big machines not questioning the established wisdom and people nailing themselves to the mast and going down with the ship.

For my part, it's both the intent, and the people doing it.

I expect and can take laziness, incompetence, and buck passing from the jobsworths of the world. I expect the scum of the Earth to enter politics and slither their way to the top. I'm unsurprised at the repulsive views Cummings and his weirdos.

But I absolutely cannot accept medical doctors and leading scientists knowingly inflicting thousands of avoidable deaths as a matter of deliberate policy. That's not normal behaviour, it's a scandal, and can't be allowed to pass.

It's precisely because we expect the worst of politicians that we have safeguards like independent advisors. The safeguards have collapsed and been turned against the very people they're supposed to protect.

 

[elbows]

Yes fair enough. But surely the way is to test people, isolate anyone who's been in contact (as they should have been doing from the start with people coming into the country), and keep the numbers as small as possible while building up the NHS ability to cope.

I still see those graphs with peaks of cases drawn above a horizontal line showing NHS beds as hugely at fault. They gave a massively optimistic view of the NHS's ability to cope, making it look like they were following the right strategy.

Keep numbers absolutely down to a minimum while you work on vaccines and treatment, surely.

Again, nearly everything I end up describing here is just to explain the background, the establishment, the orthodox thinking about pandemics. I'm not defending any of it or saying that the approach I am describing is the right one.

The graph with the peak being pushed down was orthodox thinking, it wasnt even a UK invention, it is in EU documentation and elsewhere, and it was still in the EU documentation until the period when countries started abandoning the purely orthodox approach, which was only days before the UK were also forced to change approach.

In this case I wasnt even describing the governments particular herd immunity approach in the context of this pandemic, I was just explaining a bit about levels of immunity and illness in general, and it applies both to vaccination and naturally acquired immunity. eg the natural version of it waxes and wanes with particular diseases over time for reasons I wont go into right now, which is why, left to their own devices, a whole bunch of infectious diseases would go in cycles of quiet years, and then occasional epidemics, and then a lull again due to the immunity acquired in the epidemic.

 

[weltweit]

..
But I absolutely cannot accept medical doctors and leading scientists knowingly inflicting thousands of avoidable deaths as a matter of deliberate policy. That's not normal behaviour, it's a scandal, and can't be allowed to pass.
..

Witty et al at the visible head of UK medicine was the swans body above the waters surface, while below him the medical advisory group I believe were deep in disagreement and massive angry argument over possible policies, the frantic paddling of the swan invisible below the waterline. My understanding is that there was and remains very little agreement among top UK medical advisors.

 

[treelover]

what is Johnson doing, saying "there is such a thing as society"

Why is he attacking his party's icon Thatcher?

 

[ddraig]

what is Johnson doing, saying "there is such a thing as society"

Why is he attacking his party's icon Thatcher?

what do you think?
Trying to give the impression the tories do care maybe

 

[elbows]

But I absolutely cannot accept medical doctors and leading scientists knowingly inflicting thousands of avoidable deaths as a matter of deliberate policy. That's not normal behaviour, it's a scandal, and can't be allowed to pass.

I'm afraid this demonstrates complete naivety about the establishment and various professions and attitudes and state priorities.

You'll be left with the wrong impression if you think the things you are seeing on that front in this pandemic are exceptional. They arent, there are thousands of examples over hundreds of years. I'm going to get really worn out if you dont learn this sooner rather than later, or at least I will have to learn to resist the urge to reply to your points so often.

Can someone help out here? Is there a good book or website on the broader subject?

 

[Azrael]

Current situation's simply unsustainable. Doctors are rightly furious at the death of colleagues, and continued inadequate PPE. There's also been horrific reports of infection control breaking down in hospitals, patients being infected, and Covid-19 inflicting a death toll far beyond what it should even among elderly patients. It's worse than the old septic wards. If it goes on like this, how long before increasing numbers of clinicians decide they'd better fulfil their oath by doing nothing until proper protection and segregation of Covid patients is put in place?

 

[two sheds]

I'm afraid this demonstrates complete naivety about the establishment and various professions and attitudes and state priorities.

You'll be left with the wrong impression if you think the things you are seeing on that front in this pandemic are exceptional. They arent, there are thousands of examples over hundreds of years. I'm going to get really worn out if you dont learn this sooner rather than later, or at least I will have to learn to resist the urge to reply to your points so often.

Can someone help out here? Is there a good book or website on the broader subject?

I do take your point that they're not exceptional. It doesn't make them any less despicable though. Like the tories (in particular) running down the NHS. That's one of the thousands of examples, too. They knew exactly what they were doing though.

 

[Cid]

I'm afraid this demonstrates complete naivety about the establishment and various professions and attitudes and state priorities.

You'll be left with the wrong impression if you think the things you are seeing on that front in this pandemic are exceptional. They arent, there are thousands of examples over hundreds of years. I'm going to get really worn out if you dont learn this sooner rather than later, or at least I will have to learn to resist the urge to reply to your points so often.

Can someone help out here? Is there a good book or website on the broader subject?

Much as he ended up being a moany labour-right tossbag; Ben Goldacre's Bad Science and Bad Pharma are pretty good.

 

[elbows]

I do take your point that they're not exceptional. It doesn't make them any less despicable though. Like the tories (in particular) running down the NHS. That's one of the thousands of examples, too. They knew exactly what they were doing though.

Yeah, I'm not interested in letting tories off the hook, but I seem to have to go on about the orthodox establishment stuff a lot because it affects my understanding of what our current and future plans may actually be, and what other people expect from the future too. I'm hoping to get a chance not to go on about it for a good while, but so far this opportunity has proven illusive.

 

[elbows]

In an effort to underline my point and move on, here are 2 posts I made a little over a month ago which are a look back at some of the UK's response to 2009 swine flu pandemic. You may notice certain familiar themes in the UK approach in 2009.

https://www.urban75.net/forums/thre...n-stats-updates-and-more.369129/post-16414021

https://www.urban75.net/forums/thre...n-stats-updates-and-more.369129/post-16414032

https://www.urban75.net/forums/thre...n-stats-updates-and-more.369129/post-16414063

Just clicking on the first one and then scrolling down a little to read my next 2 posts in that thread will also deliver the intended posts.

 

[weltweit]

Lockdown seems to me to be something a government does after community transmission has reached epidemic levels, after test trace and isolate has been overrun by numbers.

But is it possible to partially emerge from lockdown back into test trace and isolate with enlarged resources, both of testing and tracing, to emerge with a regime more like that of South Korea?

And one might assume that an antibody test has by then become available and scaled to be available to the general public.

 

[elbows]

Lockdown seems to me to be something a government does after community transmission has reached epidemic levels, after test trace and isolate has been overrun by numbers.

But is it possible to partially emerge from lockdown back into test trace and isolate with enlarged resources, both of testing and tracing, to emerge with a regime more like that of South Korea?

And one might assume that an antibody test has by then become available and scaled to be available to the general public.

Yes those are some of the big questions, questions about whether such approaches will continue to work in South Korea, questions about which governments will actually be prepared to try this approach, questions about when and if the opportunity will present itself. Questions about technology and privacy and what we learn about how many people were actually infected during the current wave.

 

[Cid]

Yes those are some of the big questions, questions about whether such approaches will continue to work in South Korea, questions about which governments will actually be prepared to try this approach, questions about when and if the opportunity will present itself. Questions about technology and privacy and what we learn about how many people were actually infected during the current wave.

Yep, somewhat ironically we need extensive testing to know whether testing is viable.

 

[ska invita]

The FT aren't averse to criticising the establishment. I wouldn't like to try and pin down their prevailing political leanings but in practice it's probably not quite what you think.

Liberal capitalists. Nudging for more philanthropic action from the rich. Pro EU and very anti right wing forces against the EU. Definitely looking for ways to save capitalism from itself.

Actually not that different to the Guardian. In fact Larry Elliot Guardians main economics writer is pro Brexit by contrast.

 

[mauvais]

Liberal capitalists. Nudging for more philanthropic action from the rich. Pro EU and very anti right wing forces against the EU. Definitely looking for ways to save capitalism from itself.

Actually not that different to the Guardian. In fact Larry Elliot Guardians main economics writer is pro Brexit by contrast.

I don't substantively disagree but in my limited experience I found it to be pretty different to the Graun: much less self-indulgent or showy, and more pragmatic (defined within its own political framing). Of the mainstream papers I felt it was more open and honest about what it is & what it's pursuing. The Graun very much not.

 

[William of Walworth]

Liberal capitalists. Nudging for more philanthropic action from the rich. Pro EU and very anti right wing forces against the EU. Definitely looking for ways to save capitalism from itself.

Very true, but the FT have published some pretty radical articles of late, which hints at how much the crisis is pushing more intelligent capitalist voices to start to accept that much more change will be necessary to save themeselves. With the side-effect that some of us may benefit .... </other threads ;>
Example though, a link to this FT piece (free to read) was posted in the 'How could coronavirus remake our economy and society?' thread (UK Politics).

Actually not that different to the Guardian. In fact Larry Elliot Guardians main economics writer is pro Brexit by contrast.

Even as a non-Brexit person myself, I've found his articles really interesting and healthily differert from the Guardian average for that very reason

 

[A380]

what is Johnson doing, saying "there is such a thing as society"

Why is he attacking his party's icon Thatcher?

Because he’s starting to realise that he isn’t Churchill, he’s Chamberlain.

 

[Azrael]

I'm afraid this demonstrates complete naivety about the establishment and various professions and attitudes and state priorities.

You'll be left with the wrong impression if you think the things you are seeing on that front in this pandemic are exceptional. They arent, there are thousands of examples over hundreds of years. I'm going to get really worn out if you dont learn this sooner rather than later, or at least I will have to learn to resist the urge to reply to your points so often.

Can someone help out here? Is there a good book or website on the broader subject?

Except, as the Guardian piece on disaster planning during the Blitz and Cold War made clear, there was, for all the incompetence, a genuine attempt to save lives. For me, this is different in kind, and I constantly fight the urge to nihilism. I fully understand if you don't wish to discuss this, these threads can get overwhelming, and I never expect replies.

 

[elbows]

Except, as the Guardian piece on disaster planning during the Blitz and Cold War made clear, there was, for all the incompetence, a genuine attempt to save lives. For me, this is different in kind, and I constantly fight the urge to nihilism. I fully understand if you don't wish to discuss this, these threads can get overwhelming, and I never expect replies.

But that misses the entire point of the Guardian piece! Honestly, read it again, please.

When it comes to national emergencies, Britain has a tradition of cold calculation | David Edgerton

The government’s reluctance to put the health of citizens first has echoes in the 1940s and 50s, says author David Edgerton

www.theguardian.com

 

[Azrael]

But that misses the entire point of the Guardian piece! Honestly, read it again, please.

When it comes to national emergencies, Britain has a tradition of cold calculation | David Edgerton

The government’s reluctance to put the health of citizens first has echoes in the 1940s and 50s, says author David Edgerton

www.theguardian.com

Have done so, but as I said when it first appeared, for me, this is the key quote:-

Coronavirus is a current reality, not a future scenario. There is a huge difference between favouring a utilitarian calculus to minimise losses overall, and heeding this principle when dead bodies start piling up.

I don't sentimentalize these things. I can accept hard-headed calculations for not building shelters, both pre-WW2 and in the Cold War. In both cases, it would've been a massive undertaking of dubious value (the "bomber will always get through" thinking of the '30s had planners convinced that air raids would be apocalyptic; and even with Swiss levels of shelter provisions, how viable would survival be after a nuclear assault?).

I still see the crucial difference lying in the government doing everything in its power to avert the calamity it was ill-prepared for. When it came, in WW2, policy did shift, however sluggishly: after taking matters into their own hands, Londoners were allowed into the Tube, and deep shelters were eventually built (I've been in one, and it's an awesome undertaking).

I'd feel very differently if everything had been thrown at containment and it'd failed. But it wasn't.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Post #5205 above : Thanks for C & P'ing the text of that little_legs -- a few FT articles have become free to read right now, but most still not, including that one. But that's excellent reportage.

(And I so want to read up more about Universal Basic Income in my continued free time -- my instinct is to be a fan, but I know UBI has received sensible criticism too )

Just a little tip on FT articles. Even if behind a pay wall, if you then google the title of the article (which you can read before the pay wall kicks in or take from the URL) it bypasses the firewall and you can read whole piece for free

 

[Proper Tidy]

Also don't agree FT is liberal or that it's edged towards any sort of radical critique of capitalism fwiw. It's the house paper of capital, it reflects the contemporary consensus of capital as a whole, and any perceived radicalism is because we are in a period of flux with the model of last few decades failed and a new model of capital emerging. Its also the only UK paper worth paying any attention to

 

[Azrael]

Also don't agree FT is liberal or that it's edged towards any sort of radical critique of capitalism fwiw. It's the house paper of capital, it reflects the contemporary consensus of capital as a whole, and any perceived radicalism is because we are in a period of flux with the model of last few decades failed and a new model of capital emerging. Its also the only UK paper worth paying any attention to

"Liberal" in the free market sense is fair though. They're also socially liberal AFAIK. House paper of capital they undoubtedly are, but enlightened self-interest may see them supporting some radical policies to safeguard the entire system from collapse.

 

[Proper Tidy]

"Liberal" in the free market sense is fair though. They're also socially liberal AFAIK. House paper of capital they undoubtedly are, but enlightened self-interest may see them supporting some radical policies to safeguard the entire system from collapse.

Yeah second point you make is exactly what I was getting at. It isn't radicalism as in a challenge, it's capitalism adapting instead of dying. It's perceived social liberalism imo just reflects the social liberalism of contemporary capital - something about weather vanes or something

 

[eoin_k]

Angela Saini is good on differences between men and women's health.

The weaker sex? Science that shows women are stronger than men

When it comes to longevity, surviving illness and coping with trauma, one gender comes out on top. Angela Saini meets the scientists working out why

www.theguardian.com