Coronavirus - UK
-
He is the turd that will not flush.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
They were fucked from the start no matter what they did because Neil Ferguson
If that fucking grifter is anywhere near the next 'apocalypse' then I will ignore completely
Not too sure what he is supposed to have done wrong. (apart from acting like an MP and visiting his mistress)
Fergusson was part of the Imperial College team which produced a range of scenarios for Covid depending on what action was taken. Government made their decisions on advice from SAGE and SAGE did not rely exclusively on the Imperial College model or on what Fergusson said. And Imperial College made it clear at the time the model was based on incomplete data.
Their model showed a range of scenarios with a worst case scenario of 500,000 Covid deaths if no action was taken and IIRC 250,000 deaths with home isolation/lockdown.
I'd argue with hindsight that with the total number of Covid deaths being around 225k with lockdown, the model was pretty damn good.
-
Ferguson was part of SAGE as well but sort of resigned. There was an element of undermining Govt policy/guidelines. Some dubious assumptions in much of his modelling.
I don’t see this guy as covering himself in glory. I’d listen to anything that Whitty or Bingham had to say but I’m with Mike in regard to this bell end.
-
I caught a bit of Whitty's evidence a week or so ago and he was robustly defending the models used and the need to plan for worst case scenarios and act accordingly
Putting aside his mistress-visiting, Fergusson seemed to become the convenient media whipping-boy accused of single-handledly spooking the government into an un-needed lockdown with an allegedly flawed data model. Yet his model was similar to all the others with some showing an even worse outcome
-
@Victor-Meldrew
For me the thing that tainted everything that Ferguson did was that he was coming down hard on the lockdown, backed up by his modelling but his worst case scenario model was based on no Governmental rulings about lockdowns, social distancing etc and had assumed that despite advice and guidance from the Government, the general populace would do nothing. This ignores all previous experience and was called into question by other virologists as being flawed, but he doubled down on it. -
@MajorPom
That's much more succinct!
-
@Catogrande I have resisted commenting on any of the Covid threads because it really seems pointless. they are dominated by those who see the response of (any) government as overly draconian and unnecessary.
However just to put the record straight on this one. NZ did not lockdown for 2 years. Even Auckland was only in lockdown for cumulatively just over 200 days with the rest of the country way less.
We shut the borders for just under two years - too long IMO but apart from that for much of those years the majority of NZ and NZers continued on with life as normal.
Property and shares boomed. Most businesses got through. Some sectors and groups were really badly affected. Some individuals clearly did it tough. Most just shrugged and got on with it. This does not mean that those that struggled should not have our support and sympathy, but every poll taken here still shows majority support for the governments actions.
Economic issues since then are mainly a result of macro-economic issues that would have afflicted NZ even if we had never locked down. Closed borders from our major trading partners, supply chain and logistic constraints, global economic conditions.
These are all facts. Many will argue the opposite but they are indisputable. You can have an opinion about whether the best approaches were taken but it doesn't alter those facts.
I think the government made some serious mis-steps in mid 2020 that then coloured their strategy thereafter. Mainly about not getting to the head of the queue for the vaccines. They also failed in their communication of the reasons for the vaccine roll-out. It effectively took another outbreak and associated lockdowns to rock Kiwi's out of their smug complacency and get jabbed.
I will be interested in the independent review, but as I have said elsewhere I want to put it all behind me.
Apologies for sidetracking in the UK thread, but I think most of what I have said about NZ applies to every country. they all made mistakes. they all suffered. they all continue to live with ongoing repercussions. Again, I have said elsewhere, IMO one of the worst is the divisiveness, polarisation and lack of trust it has all generated. and the shrillness.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - UK:
I don't accept that these decisions were made based on science. They were a knee jerk reaction and implemented by various political figures emboldened by the acquiescence of an ill-informed and frightened public.
Not quite sure what you are saying. That Covid responses weren't based on known science (data), but were made on the basis of some political, coercive agenda?
Science like it's a virus that lives on surfaces? Science like "wearing a cloth mask prevents transmission"? Even if the talking heads misrepresented the messaging, the CHOs etc. were complicit in not clarifying it. This lead to people dismissing following advice. The efficacy of lockdowns were destroyed in Sydney when it became patently obvious that relying on people who can't WFH to keep society functioning were infecting everyone else they came into contact with, often without knowing it. This despite a cloth mask poorly affixed to their face or standing 1.5m away while being served.
And I find it difficult to believe that anyone seriously believes politicians were stuck between a rock and a hard place trying to keep western liberal ideations of a democracy intact, rather than being power hungry arsewipes constantly looking at polling data from a terrified electorate.
And if we use excess death rate as a single, simple measure (ignoring demographics, geography population density) to determine if lockdown works or not, then doesn't NZ's ultra-low rate vindicate a strict lockdown approach?
Yeah, every country should be geographically isolated with a tiny population and shut its borders to attempt to stave off the inevitable.
-
(the)worst case scenario model was based on no Governmental rulings about lockdowns, social distancing etc and had assumed that despite advice and guidance from the Government, the general populace would do nothing..
Exactly - a worst case scenario.
His team modelled 3 scenarios and presented them to SAGE along with models from other groups (which were all pretty similar - others predicted worse). Govt made decisions based on overall SAGE advice and not simply on Fergusson's model.
I just don't get it being all down to him.
-
Am a bit concerned over the amount of energy spent on trying to find someone to blame for the past versus the lack of energy spent on trying to make sure we are prepared for a new pandemic in the near future.
-
Science like it's a virus that lives on surfaces? Science like "wearing a cloth mask prevents transmission"
Are you saying it doesn't and cloth masks are useless? Or that the CMO's should have quantified the effectiveness? In the UK there was plenty of advice on the right type of mask and which was best
And I find it difficult to believe that anyone seriously believes politicians were stuck between a rock and a hard place trying to keep western liberal ideations of a democracy intact
No. They were trying to save lives.
Yeah, every country should be geographically isolated with a tiny population and shut its borders to attempt to stave off the inevitable.
Exactly my point. Countries made individual choices based on a whole range of factors - geography, demographics, culture, etc
-
@nostrildamus said in Coronavirus - UK:
Am a bit concerned over the amount of energy spent on trying to find someone to blame for the past versus the lack of energy spent on trying to make sure we are prepared for a new pandemic in the near future.
Case in point. DiL is a paediatric nurse. During Covid they used PPE stockpile only to find stuff was missing and boxes marked with 1,000 facemasks contained less than a hundred. They assumed as it was EU-supplied, it would all be there.
Tells me there's still no checking of actual PPE stock levels
-
Yeah, not all down to him, to a degree I’m allowing my dislike of his doom saying to colour things a bit. The point I was trying to make though was that his worst case scenario, which informed much Govt thinking, was made on assumptions about the general public that wee historically shown to be widely off the mark. When this was called out by other prominent virologists he drowned them out. And as you pointed out earlier, having lobbied hard for severe lockdowns he then flouted the rules to suit himself.
So no, not all down to him by any means but he is still a fluffybunny.
-
Thanks for that, a reasoned, balanced contribution. Though I agree with @muddyriver that the property boom is a poor outcome and one that could quite easily come back to bite people that have bought anywhere near the top of the market.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
Science like it's a virus that lives on surfaces? Science like "wearing a cloth mask prevents transmission"
Are you saying it doesn't and cloth masks are useless? Or that the CMO's should have quantified the effectiveness? In the UK there was plenty of advice on the right type of mask and which was best
Cloth masks, of the type commonly adorned are effectively useless when they aren't fitted, multi-layered etc. And that's before we get into the difficulties of studies relying on self reported multi factorial effects.
And I find it difficult to believe that anyone seriously believes politicians were stuck between a rock and a hard place trying to keep western liberal ideations of a democracy intact
No. They were trying to save lives.
That's not my interpretation of it down here. Or perhaps I'm wrong and they were doing extensive polling on it for shits and giggles. Especially in the lead up to elections.
Yeah, every country should be geographically isolated with a tiny population and shut its borders to attempt to stave off the inevitable.
Exactly my point.
That's an odd point to make when it doesn't reflect reality.
-
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - UK:
Cloth masks, of the type commonly adorned are effectively useless when they aren't fitted, multi-layered etc. And that's before we get into the difficulties of studies relying on self reported multi factorial effects.
That's not what the evidence actually says. Cloth masks like tea towels and T-Shirt material actually perform well. link
That's an odd point to make when it doesn't reflect reality.
In was in response to the argument that lockdowns didn't work, proof being that Sweden has a low excess death rate compared to other EU countries. My argument is that is simplistic and takes no account of country-specific factors. As your point on NZ showed.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@antipodean said in Coronavirus - UK:
Cloth masks, of the type commonly adorned are effectively useless when they aren't fitted, multi-layered etc. And that's before we get into the difficulties of studies relying on self reported multi factorial effects.
That's not what the evidence actually says. Cloth masks like tea towels and T-Shirt material actually perform well. link
Well that destroys the credibility of all those other studies conducted by eminently qualified people.
That's an odd point to make when it doesn't reflect reality.
In was in response to the argument that lockdowns didn't work, proof being that Sweden has a low excess death rate compared to other EU countries. My argument is that is simplistic and takes no account of country-specific factors. As your point on NZ showed.
I thought your argument was lockdowns do work, as you erroneously stated Sweden was now 'in favour of lockdowns earlier and harder than say the UK or NY'.
-
No, my argument is simply governments had to take decisions with minimal data and take into account differing factors (demographic, culture, behavioral, climate, geography etc), that mistakes made were understandable and to criticise decisions with the benefit of hindsight as if they were deliberate mistakes is plain wrong.