WHEN'S IT ALL GONNA OPEN??

[Phil.]

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

The point is that the advice given by SAGE is supposed to be independent of Government so they are free to propose what the best policy possible is. It is then up to Government outside of SAGE to make the political decision as to whether the proposal is politically acceptable. By trying to filter what is politically acceptable (through Cummings) into the SAGE meetings, it undermines their position.

Nonsense, of course the SAGE need to be made aware of what is both politically acceptable and deliverable. But having someone there advising them of that, does not undermine the scientific decision. Let’s for the sake of example introduce an extreme. Let’s say SAGE, and it probably would work, decide the scientific advise to kill off this virus, is to cull any person who has it, and also cull all those who have been in contact with that person over the previous seven days. Scientifically this would deal with the virus and may even wipe it out in the long run,  but I suspect that there would be some push back on it from other quarters. There is no point the scientists coming up with a plan that has no hope of implementation, no matter how good it might be.

[Sir Nibble]

8 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

My experience, which is now dated, was that politicians were not expected to sit in on the meetings of officers (ie the other way round from your scenario)

I did not think that SAGE was supposed to propose policy or even advise - in the briefings the officials are quite careful in this. It is there to advise on the data that will inform piltcal decisions and policy taken by ministers. (Same is supposed to hold for political advisers as well but . . . )

Well it depends entirely upon what is being discussed and why. Officers would often have meetings without members of course, and vice versa, bet there were times when it was the most efficient way to do things. It's entirely likely that the members of SAGE will be assisted with access beyond their membership and information they weren't aware they didn't have.

I don't know at all how they run things, none of us do, I would simply caution against jumping to conclusions about sinister intent simply born out of hostility to the present government.

It has to be accepted that it's in everyone's interest for this crisis to be concluded with the minimum  of harm and no one is attempting to impede that. Even Cummings is not the incarnation of  evil.

[Momac]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

 

 

About 2 weeks

Perhaps the final answer will be somewhere in between our estimates . I would hope you are right but I suspect not.

 

 

[DandV]

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I support Herd Immunity.

 

Its the various methods of achieving it that I'm a bit hesitant over :

 

1) let everyone get it and let a lot of oldies die (suggested 500,000)

2) lock up everyone and let a few die, flatten the curve

3) 'free' the youngsters, get back to work, and let some oldies die

4) keep lockdown until a 'pill' or a vaccine is available

 

And, various permutations of the above.

Very succinctly put.

And all that is now required is to give each of these a unique name.

Stabilise the current situation with a continuing lockdown for a limited time.

Encourage the scientists and economists, and public health experts  lay out the implications for each one and then both informed politicians and the public, have a brief debate, before the government adopts one of the above options, keeping the public informed which and why, and then quickly implements the unique measures most appropriate to that plan. Fudging on, on the basis that all those above options are all the same should not be an option.

Edited May 1, 2020 by DandV

[Wanderer Vagabond]

3 hours ago, Phil. said:

Nonsense, of course the SAGE need to be made aware of what is both politically acceptable and deliverable. But having someone there advising them of that, does not undermine the scientific decision. Let’s for the sake of example introduce an extreme. Let’s say SAGE, and it probably would work, decide the scientific advise to kill off this virus, is to cull any person who has it, and also cull all those who have been in contact with that person over the previous seven days. Scientifically this would deal with the virus and may even wipe it out in the long run,  but I suspect that there would be some push back on it from other quarters. There is no point the scientists coming up with a plan that has no hope of implementation, no matter how good it might be.

Ignoring the ridiculously extreme example you give but putting forward a somewhat more likely scenario, why was the 'scientific advice' that having large crowds at the likes of the Cheltenham Festival, Twickenham, Liverpool v Atletico Madrid and leaving pubs and restaurants open all supposed to be OK, and then suddenly it wasn't. Since they have chosen to make the deliberations of SAGE very opaque we have no idea what anyone's on the panel's  opinion on the subject may have been, but it would have been a political decision to try to shut down those events, do I see Cummings hand in there possibly? Since he exists by lies, intimidation and evidence-free dismissal of staff, I feel no real guilt in making unsupported accusations against him, that is what he does to others so why shouldn't we? 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

why was the 'scientific advice' that having large crowds at the likes of the Cheltenham Festival, Twickenham, Liverpool v Atletico Madrid and leaving pubs and restaurants open all supposed to be OK, and then suddenly it wasn't.

 

I seem to remember that close-down was discussed but Prof Witty suggested it was felt that if it was introduced 'too soon' then people would get tired of it and just ignore it, so the virus was just left to run.

 

Once it was acknowledged as being 'serious' (about 2 weeks later) Lockdown was 'advised', that was ignored by the public, so the following week it became an 'instruction'.

 

People are now getting tired of it (as forecast) and are starting to break the lockdown conditions. Motor vehicle use in increasing, shops are re-opening, parties in the park etc etc.

[churchward]

15 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

, why was the 'scientific advice' that having large crowds at the likes of the Cheltenham Festival, Twickenham, Liverpool v Atletico Madrid and leaving pubs and restaurants open all supposed to be OK, and then suddenly it wasn't. 

No matter when the lockdown etc. was introduced there would always have been a moment between the state of "its OK to go out and go to pubs, football matches etc." and the state of "stay home"

 

All new regulations are in active from a point in time no matter when that is.

15 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Since he exists by lies, intimidation and evidence-free dismissal of staff, I feel no real guilt in making unsupported accusations against him, that is what he does to others so why shouldn't we? 

Why not just choose to be the better person rather than follow his lead and make things up?

Edited May 1, 2020 by churchward

[DandV]

No country has optimised their response. Decisions made and previous events make where we are at the moment. But what is really important is the what now? Alan has outlined four possible scenarios each that would require it's own strategies, as well as some strategies that are common to more then one scenario.

Shouldn't the debate be concentrated on the where to now, rather then what was?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[peterboat]

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I seem to remember that close-down was discussed but Prof Witty suggested it was felt that if it was introduced 'too soon' then people would get tired of it and just ignore it, so the virus was just left to run.

 

Once it was acknowledged as being 'serious' (about 2 weeks later) Lockdown was 'advised', that was ignored by the public, so the following week it became an 'instruction'.

 

People are now getting tired of it (as forecast) and are starting to break the lockdown conditions. Motor vehicle use in increasing, shops are re-opening, parties in the park etc etc.

I have noticed the roads getting busier Alan,  this weekend might be make or break for lockdown with the police handing out fines. A boat called yoghurtpot is making a nuisance of itself again, wandering up and down plus closing paddles on locks that should be up with notices telling them! Time to CRT them methinks 

[Richard10002]

5 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

So a Scientist in receipt of Government financial backing for his current project, that Cummings having the ear of Alexander, could curtail at a moments notice is going to speak up in a way not acceptable to Cummings? unlikely. He'll water down what he may have wanted to say for it to 'become acceptable'.

What He said ^^^^^^^^^  .... 

 

Phil is very naive to think/believe otherwise.

[churchward]

2 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

What He said ^^^^^^^^^  .... 

 

Phil is very naive to think/believe otherwise.

Maybe maybe not.  You or WV have no idea if this is really true.

 

Many people have more integrity and honesty than you give them credit for.  

[Richard10002]

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

Perhaps the final answer will be somewhere in between our estimates . I would hope you are right but I suspect not.

 

 

I don't think any GP surgery, or anywhere else for that matter, is going to be doing 50 of anything per hour.

 

To get into our GP surgery right now you arrive at the door, phone them up, someone comes to the door, gives you a bit of a grilling about why you are there then, either lets you in, or goes and gets something, brings it to the door, gives it to you, and off you go.

 

I know this because i go to the attached pharmacy now and then to pickup our prescriptions and, whilst in the social distancing queue, I have seen it happen a couple of times.

 

Thinking about it, a supermarket like the Sainsburys that I go to, could probably handle 50-100 throughput per hour... 

[Richard10002]

13 minutes ago, churchward said:

Maybe maybe not.  You or WV have no idea if this is really true.

I know of people who have not been prepared to say what they would like to, for fear of their position. Putting Cummings in there makes this a possibility... if he wasnt there, it wouldnt be. Simples really.

13 minutes ago, churchward said:

 

Many people have more integrity and honesty than you give them credit for.  

I believe that Cummings has little/no integrity or honesty - you can think what you like.

[Phil.]

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Ignoring the ridiculously extreme example you give but putting forward a somewhat more likely scenario, why was the 'scientific advice' that having large crowds at the likes of the Cheltenham Festival, Twickenham, Liverpool v Atletico Madrid and leaving pubs and restaurants open all supposed to be OK, and then suddenly it wasn't. Since they have chosen to make the deliberations of SAGE very opaque we have no idea what anyone's on the panel's  opinion on the subject may have been, but it would have been a political decision to try to shut down those events, do I see Cummings hand in there possibly? Since he exists by lies, intimidation and evidence-free dismissal of staff, I feel no real guilt in making unsupported accusations against him, that is what he does to others so why shouldn't we? 

Of course it was ridiculously extreme, it was meant to be, but on a purely scientific basis which is what you seek, it would likely work. But here is something more reasonable as to why the SAGE, should be at least made aware of what is the political position. In the early days there was it seems a theory, that the virus should be allowed to run riot through the population as quickly as possible. This would lead to herd immunity, cause least damage to the economy, but at a very high and politically unacceptable death rate. It would also cause NHS critical care to be completely overwhelmed, also politically unacceptable. So in these circumstances it would be quite right for SAGE to be informed of what the absolute capacity was relating to NHS critical care, and to request a model based on science, to ensure that the virus did not create a situation which exceeded that position. Like I said before, what is the point of SAGE wasting their time, developing a model which is either politically, and or practically, impossible to deliver.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Phil.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

10 hours ago, Phil. said:

Of course it was ridiculously extreme, it was meant to be, but on a purely scientific basis which is what you seek, it would likely work. But here is something more reasonable as to why the SAGE, should be at least made aware of what is the political position. In the early days there was it seems a theory, that the virus should be allowed to run riot through the population as quickly as possible. This would lead to herd immunity, cause least damage to the economy, but at a very high and politically unacceptable death rate. It would also cause NHS critical care to be completely overwhelmed, also politically unacceptable. So in these circumstances it would be quite right for SAGE to be informed of what the absolute capacity was relating to NHS critical care, and to request a model based on science, to ensure that the virus did not create a situation which exceeded that position. Like I said before, what is the point of SAGE wasting their time, developing a model which is either politically, and or practically, impossible to deliver.

SAGE, due to what their make up should be, would be well aware of the critical care capacity of the NHS, why would you think a political adviser would have superior knowledge on the subject? They would also be modelling the various scenarios from doing nothing to complete shutdown, again why do you think a political adviser would have superior knowledge on the subject? His 'specialist subject' is politics, which had no place in the SAGE deliberations otherwise they might just as well shut it down and left it to the politicians.

[Phil.]

28 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

SAGE, due to what their make up should be, would be well aware of the critical care capacity of the NHS, why would you think a political adviser would have superior knowledge on the subject? They would also be modelling the various scenarios from doing nothing to complete shutdown, again why do you think a political adviser would have superior knowledge on the subject? His 'specialist subject' is politics, which had no place in the SAGE deliberations otherwise they might just as well shut it down and left it to the politicians.

Who said anything about anyone having superior knowledge, only you it appears. I doubt Cummings forced them to arrive at the decision they did, rather he may have suggested an option, which ended up being the most appropriate. 

[Dr Bob]

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

SAGE, due to what their make up should be, would be well aware of the critical care capacity of the NHS, why would you think a political adviser would have superior knowledge on the subject? They would also be modelling the various scenarios from doing nothing to complete shutdown, again why do you think a political adviser would have superior knowledge on the subject? His 'specialist subject' is politics, which had no place in the SAGE deliberations otherwise they might just as well shut it down and left it to the politicians.

Incorrect, yet again.

In any business activity whether it be a multinational deciding on a new enterprise, an SME deciding on whether to launch a new product or a government fighting a virus, it is just plain daft to have a technical only team. I have 45 years experience of operating at the technical commercial interface so am qualified to comment. A technical team will not know enough about the 'real world'. You have to have commercial peeps involved to set the guidelines so the technical peeps are constrained to what is possible. You also need highly skilled technical/commercial people managing the interface. In the real world, anyone with the title 'Prof' was seen as a waste of space (it's true). They tend to be acedemics with little knowledge of the real world. Maybe 'Profs' in medcine will have more experience but I would worry. Left to their own devices, the technical bods would have had us locked down for a year.

I am also worried about the skills of our technical/commerical guys ie the CSO. Late May, one friday he stated that we would have 3 million antibody tests by the end of  the weekend. I got harranged on hear for daring to suggest he was wrong. He was wrong. You cannot scale up a very technical lab test in one month to 100's of millions of samples. It is impossible - even for the best test in the world. You have to do your QC. His peers saw that but the CSO didnt. That is totally unacceptable and shows a lack of real world knowledge from someone in such a powerful position.

You need commercial peeps in the SAGE meetings. End of.

[Sir Nibble]

Much of the debate is down to agenda. There is a good deal of it driven by party political bias and some people have thrown out objectivity and starting with the identity of the criminal are looking for the crime.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 hour ago, Phil. said:

Who said anything about anyone having superior knowledge, only you it appears. I doubt Cummings forced them to arrive at the decision they did, rather he may have suggested an option, which ended up being the most appropriate. 

Which should never have been his role. He is a political influencer with no specialist knowledge of pandemics at all. It rather makes it clear as to why Government chose to keep the membership of SAGE secret, allegedly to prevent outside influence on the discussions within the panel, a rather strange stance to take when they have chosen to put a political influencer on the panel itself, I'm not surprised that they wanted to keep that secret.

 

You may doubt whether Cummings forced the panel to arrive at a given decision but that is his modus operandi, he achieves his aims through bullying and wilful humiliation so I would not be as sure as you seem to be whether he forced the point.

 

There are a whole variety of people who could justifiably have a position on the panel, either as observer or participant, Cummings isn't one of them.

1 hour ago, Dr Bob said:

Incorrect, yet again.

In any business activity whether it be a multinational deciding on a new enterprise, an SME deciding on whether to launch a new product or a government fighting a virus, it is just plain daft to have a technical only team. I have 45 years experience of operating at the technical commercial interface so am qualified to comment. A technical team will not know enough about the 'real world'. You have to have commercial peeps involved to set the guidelines so the technical peeps are constrained to what is possible. You also need highly skilled technical/commercial people managing the interface. In the real world, anyone with the title 'Prof' was seen as a waste of space (it's true). They tend to be acedemics with little knowledge of the real world. Maybe 'Profs' in medcine will have more experience but I would worry. Left to their own devices, the technical bods would have had us locked down for a year.

I am also worried about the skills of our technical/commerical guys ie the CSO. Late May, one friday he stated that we would have 3 million antibody tests by the end of  the weekend. I got harranged on hear for daring to suggest he was wrong. He was wrong. You cannot scale up a very technical lab test in one month to 100's of millions of samples. It is impossible - even for the best test in the world. You have to do your QC. His peers saw that but the CSO didnt. That is totally unacceptable and shows a lack of real world knowledge from someone in such a powerful position.

You need commercial peeps in the SAGE meetings. End of.

The point is that SAGE comes up with the various options and the potential outcomes and the results should then be passed to Governemnt at the COBRA meeting for them to decide on the political expediency of them. To politicise SAGE by putting a political adviser in it corrupts the advice being given.

[Dr Bob]

40 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 

 

The point is that SAGE comes up with the various options and the potential outcomes and the results should then be passed to Governemnt at the COBRA meeting for them to decide on the political expediency of them. To politicise SAGE by putting a political adviser in it corrupts the advice being given.

Wrong again. If SAGE is technical only then it cannot be allowed to come up with 'various' options. It has to come up with real options which will only happen if commercial/business people are present. Yes, the tech guys could brainstorm but they need to be constrained by reality.

Please identify your credentials and experience on technical/commercial interface behaviours in big multinationals/government. I know what I am talking about from experience. I am qualified to make these comments.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Dr Bob

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Just now, Dr Bob said:

Wrong again. If SAGE is technical only then it cannot be allowed to come up with 'various' options. It has to come up with real options which will only happen if commercial/business people are present. Yes, the tech guys could brainstorm but they need to be constrained by reality.

Please identify you credentials and experience on technical/commercial interface behaviours in big multinationals/government. I know what I am talking about from experience. I am qualified to make these comments.

Sorry, is Cummings a commercial/business person? no, he is  a political influencer, he has no role in such meetings whatsoever.

[Dr Bob]

22 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Sorry, is Cummings a commercial/business person? no, he is  a political influencer, he has no role in such meetings whatsoever.

......and your qualifications?

[Machpoint005]

2 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

......and your qualifications?

 

WV isn't on the SAGE committee. He can make comments as a lay person, as can I.

 

 

My comment is that Cummings has no qualifications to serve on a scientific committee.

 

Mind you, most members of the government have no qualifications to do anything worthwhile or sensible either.   

[Wanderer Vagabond]

7 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

......and your qualifications?

The question is Cummings qualifications, not mine, and he has no relevant qualifications to be on the panel. Other members of Government seem to agree with this even quoting the dire source of the Daily Wail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8257417/Top-Tories-join-calls-ban-Dominic-Cummings-coronavirus-scientific-briefings.html  ) (just to show impartiality).

 

The trouble with Cummings is that he always sees himself as the most intelligent person in the room and that will be the case on SAGE despite his lack of knowledge. Anyone want to try to contradict him? unlikely since he is a foul mouthed person as well.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Wanderer Vagabond

[GUMPY]

Ireland seem to have a decent roadmap out of a lockdown that is stricter than ours

They are a bit ahead of us but its looking like August over there

The roadmap sets out Ireland's plan for lifting COVID-19 restrictions on:

18 May (phase 1)
8 June (phase 2)
29 June (phase 3)
20 July (phase 4)
10 August (phase 5)

https://www.gov.ie/en/news/58bc8b-taoiseach-announces-roadmap-for-reopening-society-and-business-and-u/?referrer=/roadmap/