Suppress ?16 Apr 2020 09:35
Last night's, 'The World Tonight', R4 at 23.40 secs in, Layla Moran, a Lib Dem MP, wished for some more transparency about the membership of SAGE, and seemed to worry about scientific papers with potential large margins of error, being adopted by a Govt proud of it's mantra, "being led by the science" AS IF the science leads therefore to one true answer . . . . .
Some further comment on this theme today : "The government assures us that its decisions and timing are based on science, as if it is a neutral, value-free process resulting in a specific set of instructions" . . . . . . . "But while scientists carry out observations and experiments, testing, iterating and discovering new knowledge, it is the role of policymakers to act on the best available evidence. In the context of a rapidly growing threat, that means listening to experts with experience of responding to previous epidemics. When I say that politicians “refused to listen”, I am referring to the advice and recommendations coming from the World Health Organization, from China and from Italy. The WHO advice, based on decades of experience and widely accepted by public health leaders and scientists around the world was clear – use every possible tool to suppress transmission. That meant testing and isolating cases, tracing and quarantining contacts, and ramping up hygiene efforts" . . . . .
. . . . "The evidence underpinning the government’s decision appears in a report from 9 March summarising the potential impact of behavioural and social interventions. The report did not consider the impact of case-finding and contact-tracing, but it did suggest that the biggest impact on cases and deaths would come from social distancing and the protection of vulnerable groups. And yet social distancing was not recommended then. That day, 12 March, after hearing with disbelief the government announcement that didn’t include widespread social distancing, I recommended to my team at Imperial that they should work from home for the foreseeable future. Indeed, I have not been to my office since. Neither the advice nor the science were followed that week. My colleagues, led by Neil Ferguson, published a report on 16 March estimating that without strong suppression, 250,000 people could die in the UK. The government responded that day with a recommendation for social distancing, avoiding pubs and working from home if possible. But there was still no enforcement, and it was left up to individuals and employers to decide what to do. Many people were willing but unable to comply as we showed in a report on 20 March. It was only on 23 March that a more stringent lockdown and economic support was announced."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/15/uk-government-coronavirus-science-who-advice
Sign In
Follow the stocks
