Coronavirus

[Witton Park]

Meanwhile more back of fag packet science.

Dr Susan Hopkins, chief medical adviser to NHS Test and Trace, initially told a Downing Street briefing this morning that advice from Sage showed “for every day that we release [measures] we will need two days of tighter restrictions”.

However, a spokesperson for Public Health England later clarified that Hopkins had misspoken, and that “for every one day of relaxation, five days of tighter restrictions would potentially be needed.”

The chief medical adviser stoked speculation that England may enter a third national lockdown after the festive season, adding: “Then, I think, once we have got past the Christmas period if there has been a release and some socialisation we will all have to be very responsible and reduce those contacts again.”

The legislation lifts lockdown measures on 2nd December and the default position is the Tier system.

You can see what's going on here.

It seems SAGE want more lockdown, more restrictions.

It seems Government largely want less, possibly with the exception of Hancock.

If SAGE don't seem to be getting what they want, they leak and brief against the Government to create a pressure.

As Muddy says, you then end up with a Tier system that seemed to be working, the WHO also endorse the policy, but it wasn't what SAGE wanted and they created a pressure to go full lockdown.

What is the motivation though? Seems like control to me.

[Muddy Retriever]

More evidence that the lockdown advice was incorrect here:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...d-overwhelmed/
"Scientific advisers wrongly suggested that the NHS Nightingale hospitals would be overwhelmed by mid-November when Boris Johnson was persuaded to trigger a second coronavirus lockdown.

A document shown to the Prime Minister at the end of last month projected that hospitals in the South-West and North-West would be swamped by this point – but hospitals in the two regions are not full, and the Nightingale hospitals have not so far been needed........

A Cabinet Office analysis of hospital bed occupancy was shown to the Prime Minister in the days before he rushed out an announcement of the second national lockdown following a high-profile leak. It said that "on the current trajectory" the NHS would not be able to accept any more patients by Christmas week, and that the South-West and North-West would be the first areas to run out of capacity.

The graphic suggested the South-West would have "exceeded surge capacity, including Nightingale capacity" by November 14, with the North-West in the same situation a day later.

Crucially, the graph claimed it would take three weeks for a lockdown to have "any impact on hospital admissions", meaning the latest lockdown, which has been in place for less than a fortnight, cannot be the reason the projection has proved to be wrong."

[Witton Park]

More evidence that the lockdown advice was incorrect here:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...d-overwhelmed/
"Scientific advisers wrongly suggested that the NHS Nightingale hospitals would be overwhelmed by mid-November when Boris Johnson was persuaded to trigger a second coronavirus lockdown.

A document shown to the Prime Minister at the end of last month projected that hospitals in the South-West and North-West would be swamped by this point – but hospitals in the two regions are not full, and the Nightingale hospitals have not so far been needed........

A Cabinet Office analysis of hospital bed occupancy was shown to the Prime Minister in the days before he rushed out an announcement of the second national lockdown following a high-profile leak. It said that "on the current trajectory" the NHS would not be able to accept any more patients by Christmas week, and that the South-West and North-West would be the first areas to run out of capacity.

The graphic suggested the South-West would have "exceeded surge capacity, including Nightingale capacity" by November 14, with the North-West in the same situation a day later.

Crucially, the graph claimed it would take three weeks for a lockdown to have "any impact on hospital admissions", meaning the latest lockdown, which has been in place for less than a fortnight, cannot be the reason the projection has proved to be wrong."

seems like SAGE have taken their sub-groups advise to the next level and increase the personal threat to the Cabinet

[Muddy Retriever]

seems like SAGE have taken their sub-groups advise to the next level and increase the personal threat to the Cabinet

At the bottom of the article it says that Steve Baker has suggested that at least one "devil's advocate" expert should attend all meetings at which Sage advice was discussed in order to challenge the group's opinion and present alternative views.

I think that is a very good idea and Carl Heneghan should be one of the devil's advocates.

[Mike T]

Graham - I wonder if your 98 year old mother at her time of life, would prefer a few months longer of family contact, or 12 months more of a sterile life with little or no personal contact and no hugs from her family.
My neighbours 100 year old Mum has said she would chose the first option.

I came across many very elderly people when I was working - even if it involved a considerable sacrifice now (surgery/risk/pain) almost all opted for a longer life when the opportunity existed.

[Mike T]

Are they? Well it's only been the case this year since March.

In previous years when we had 500+ pw Autumn fatalities because of flu, we never considered closing down the country.

Are you looking forward to this as an annual event?

Flu deaths are very difficult to pin down. For example:

"At the time of writing this article in March, Public Health England told Full Fact it estimated that on average 17,000 people have died from the flu in England annually between 2014/15 and 2018/19 - with the yearly deaths varying widely from a high of 28,330 in 2014/15 to a low of 1,692 in 2018/19."

But if you try to find specific details, the numbers keep getting tied up with excess winter deaths and pneumonia.

But just because we did not lockdown for flu, does not mean we should not lockdown for Covid. In fact, imagine the cases/deaths if we had not locked down. Look at what is happening in Dakota.

[Witton Park]

I can imagine Mike - before lockdown in March, cases were already falling. Before lockdown this month, cases were already falling. In Liverpool before they were put in Tier 3, cases were already falling.

[Witton Park]

A leaked excerpt of a Public Health meeting in Canada.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvYz...ature=youtu.be

[Wetherby whaler]

Noel in a previous post you referred to SAGE as professional epidemiologists.

The most represented qualification on SAGE is that of mathematician. Perhaps that explains their over-reliance on modelling.

Virologists, epidemiologists and immunologists are thin on the ground.
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ted-sub-groups

Google a few - you'll see.

They also have sub groups feeding in to them, such as SPI-B and has 42 members. It specialises in Behavioural Science.

A previous recommendation from them to SAGE was "The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging."

I don't think they got it wrong through incompetence. I think it was intent. Whether that intent was to coerce, to threaten, to heighten fear... I don't know, but I think it's backfiring. They could do that in the Spring, but people aren't having it now.

I am tending to think there are other motivations though.

A psychologist on R5 some weeks ago said that people’s lived experience, what they see around them, will always outweigh what they are told. In the first lockdown, the experts were given the benefit of the doubt, but now? People do not see folks like them dying, they don’t see bodies piling up in the street, they see even old people recovering. They see an infection fatality rate of 0.05% in healthy people under 70. That is why project fear is starting to backfire and why the experts are starting to look a bit silly. Other motivations? Maybe follow the money. Lots of experts are shareholders or have other interests in the Covid economy. None of them should be allowed anywhere near power or influence if they have a financial interest.

[noel]

...before lockdown in March, cases were already falling...

What's the evidence for this?