Coronavirus

[Grays_1890]

I am at work so can’t reply now.

Does anyone else find it funny that those who backed Brexit, ignored logical expert projections, now believe in a mythical science that makes all decisions for you?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

I would trust a scientist due to the fact Virology is a science, not that crazy a logic TBH.

 

[Hootnow]

I am at work so can’t reply now.

Does anyone else find it funny that those who backed Brexit, ignored logical expert projections, seem to now believe in a mythical science entity that makes all decisions for you?

Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

Britain has had enough of experts, says Gove

We should probably get non-experts to manage the national response to this crisis and to nurse and medically manage these patients.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Do you think? Science once finding out more and taking into account our own circumstance advised the change no? There are more facts to suggest the Government changed its stance with scientist input which changed as it found out more facts than it did because the Media told them to? There was not a public outcry either, people staying out in vast numbers on the first weekend of lock down in millions suggests that people would have taken to herd meteorology if they were told to and scientific evidence backed it up. I am adhering to Lock DOwn because the Government told me to, not because I thought I knew better, if I was allowed back to work tomorrow I would go too.

What you seem to call science is just people making decisions. What do you think ‘science’ decides? Is there a science computer that gives us the answer each time?

My point is quite simple: getting testing available for NHS workers and the public is not a scientific issue, it’s a logistical one. One that the army or private enterprise is better equipped to make happen than an academic.

Academics and science can work to improve the testing kit for example.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Grays_1890]

The difference for me at least. Is the fact that china is origin of a previously unknown virus. So they were learning literally from scratch. They didnt have a one or two month warning.

As soon as I saw that china locked down Wuhan, I knew this was deadly serious. So from the 23rd of January the uk government has no excuses. Prior to that fair play yeah... but from the 23rd onwards no.

None of the above is to absolve china of its responsibility in this... those wet markets are a disgrace to the human race. And the initial cover up by Wuhan officials has directly led to the number of deaths there and world wide. And are almost certainly a result of their wider political system... however once the central government got involved they done very well for their state and the world. They bought us some time and gave us a system to follow.... which we subsequently wasted

No I get that and we have reacted poorly in some aspects and better in others. Look we represent two people who have different views in this but probably agree the sentiment of stay home and save lives, millions can’t even do that based on solid advise, so from the inception of the virus to people at home the responsibility of this and how it’s dealt with isn’t just on China, Boris or Trump it’s from the average person on the street to be responsible for what they can be upward and down but it’s all equally important.

 

[Grays_1890]

What you seem to call science is just people making decisions. What do you think ‘science’ decides? Is there a science computer that gives us the answer each time?

My point is quite simple: getting testing available for NHS workers and the public is not a scientific issue, it’s a logistical one. One that the army or private enterprise is better equipped to make happen than an academic.

Academics and science can work to improve the testing kit for example.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

do you not think Science had a part to play in projection of rates of contamination that had influence on decisions. Or the initial idea that herd would work due to immune factors.

 

[Hootnow]

do you not think Science had a part to play in projection of rates of contamination that had influence on decisions. Or the initial idea that herd would work due to immune factors.

I actually do agree with this. Unlike the idiot across the Atlantic for example, I genuinely do think most of what Boris and co have done since the gravity of the situation has hit them is guided by what his scientific and medical advisors are telling him.

Of course this may be wrong advice but he can't know that.

I've articulated already my criticisms of him and the Tory party on this thread, including further up this page, but on this count, I think they have genuinely tried to follow what they've been advised.

 

[SpurMeUp]

do you not think Science had a part to play in projection of rates of contamination that had influence on decisions. Or the initial idea that herd would work due to immune factors.

Yes it did, and look how that turned out. The approach was binned when numbers going into hospitals went up, the media and public looked at graphs comparing us to Italy and politicians decided they might look like they caused more deaths. The government have to make judgment calls taking all advice available. Projections are notoriously shaky especially when data is new and sketchy. The best approach is a war or army like one where you prepare for the worst and you do so with speed and vigour.

I don’t blame the government for any of this, but there is a pattern of them reacting, rather than preparing effectively.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Grays_1890]

Yes it did, and look how that turned out. The approach was binned when numbers going into hospitals went up, the media and public looked at graphs comparing us to Italy and politicians decided they might look like they caused more deaths. The government have to make judgment calls taking all advice available. Projections are notoriously shaky especially when data is new and sketchy. The best approach is a war or army like one where you prepare for the worst and you do with with speed and vigour.

I don’t blame the government for any of this, but there is a pattern of them reacting, rather than preparing effectively.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

So you think Joe public looked at the stats in Italy before the Government and they were not even a consideration to their plans?

 

[SpurMeUp]

So you think Joe public looked at the stats in Italy before the Government and they were not even a consideration to their plans?

I didn’t say that no. Of course they were a consideration. But maybe you appreciate there isn’t a magical science entity that has answers to everything. Scientists, like everyone else is making it up as they go.

Do you think the government prepared well for testing, when we are still way way off the Prime Ministers testing numbers promise?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Grays_1890]

I didn’t say that no. Of course they were a consideration. But maybe you appreciate there isn’t a magical science entity that has answers to everything. Scientists, like everyone else is making it up as they go.

Do you think the government prepared well for testing, when we are still way way off the Prime Ministers testing numbers promise?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

No they have not, but I also don’t believe they changed their strategy due to the public or the Daily Mail

 

[scaramanga]

What you seem to call science is just people making decisions. What do you think ‘science’ decides? Is there a science computer that gives us the answer each time?

My point is quite simple: getting testing available for NHS workers and the public is not a scientific issue, it’s a logistical one. One that the army or private enterprise is better equipped to make happen than an academic.

Academics and science can work to improve the testing kit for example.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

The choice to spend that money is one with profound effects either way. We choose to do so when the scientific advice states so - the government should not spend our money on a whim.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Do you think? Science once finding out more and taking into account our own circumstance advised the change no? There are more facts to suggest the Government changed its stance with scientist input which changed as it found out more facts than it did because the Media told them to? There was not a public outcry either, people staying out in vast numbers on the first weekend of lock down in millions suggests that people would have taken to herd meteorology if they were told to and scientific evidence backed it up. I am adhering to Lock DOwn because the Government told me to, not because I thought I knew better, if I was allowed back to work tomorrow I would go too.

I think it was that Daily Star front page that swung it. TBF

 

[Grays_1890]

I think it was that Daily Star front page that swung it. TBF

ohhh that’s why they were swayed

 

[SpurMeUp]

The choice to spend that money is one with profound effects either way. We choose to do so when the scientific advice states so - the government should not spend our money on a whim.

...until there is public outcry, and then they throw money at the problem. Acting decisively beforehand getting Testing going before the outcry would have been the better scenario. Easy to say now, and everyone is adapting, so I don't blame the government for being behind the curve. Great leadership stays ahead, thinks ahead and successfully prepares. It doesn't blame other people for inaction.

 

[DTA]

I have criticized this government over their ill preparedness in this crisis.

But fare play with the nightingale. 9 days is impressive. And they would have played a massive role in doing that.

 

[Parklaner81]

You didn't manage to get it straight .

I was saying your belief in science as some kind of cure-all solution, is an oversimplification. Furthermore, I didn't say the government wasn't interested in science, rather that they are reacting to a range of factors (when the most effective leadership involves preparing and staying ahead of the curve). NHS patient numbers, the media, and public opinion are more important than scientific advisors. Presumably, 'science' determined the herd immunity approach. Then reality and public opinion hit home, and the government reacted.

Ok, I'm getting a sense of deja vu here...but could you please flag up where I asserted such a belief?

What I actually suggested was simply that the government had followed the scientific advice they had been given - a point you seem to be disputing. I'm not the one in this conversation claiming to have all the answers.

My understanding (which may well be either wrong or incomplete - feel free to correct me in either case, but please try to keep your answers responsive to things I've actually said) is that the government moved away from the herd immunity approach as a direct result of updated academic modelling that suggested that the NHS would be overwhelmed in short order if they persisted on that path. If my understanding is correct, I struggle to see how anyone could take much of an issue with that. But you seem feel that it wasn't science but public opinion that prompted the shift.

My recollection is that public opinion at that time was quite split - many believed tighter restrictions should've been imposed sooner, others seemed to feel quite differently judging by the photos and videos of crowded beaches, parks etc. Still others, perhaps falling somewhere in the middle of the two extremes felt that the phased introduction of restrictions was very sensible.

Which group was the government reacting to?

 

[Grays_1890]

I have criticized this government over their ill preparedness in this crisis.

But fare play with the nightingale. 9 days is impressive. And they would have played a massive role in doing that.

Yep and that was down to good planning, was written into the approval of planning permission that the Government could take it over when needed, if needed

 

[Grays_1890]

...until there is public outcry, and then they throw money at the problem. Acting decisively beforehand getting Testing going before the outcry would have been the better scenario. Easy to say now, and everyone is adapting, so I don't blame the government for being behind the curve. Great leadership stays ahead, thinks ahead and successfully prepares. It doesn't blame other people for inaction.

There was no public outcry for them to throw money at anything, in actual fact in defence of Bojo they announced the first global bail out of the public way before anyone expected it and it was alot better than anyone every thought.

Our whole office was in shock that they were literally bailing out everyone to the tune of £2500 a month.

 

[DTA]

Yep and that was down to good planning, was written into the approval of planning permission that the Government could take it over when needed, if needed

Like I said fair play and well done to them. I am fully willing to give the government credit when it's due. Like I said this isnt tribal for me.

 

[scaramanga]

...until there is public outcry, and then they throw money at the problem. Acting decisively beforehand getting Testing going before the outcry would have been the better scenario. Easy to say now, and everyone is adapting, so I don't blame the government for being behind the curve.

That's not the timeline. The government's plan changed when the newest data were added into the models they were using and the results changed.

Great leadership stays ahead, thinks ahead and successfully prepares. It doesn't blame other people for inaction.

Getting the right result (remains to be seen if it even is here) for the wrong reasons is not great leadership, it's blind luck. Especially so when that action is contrary to expert opinion.