Now that the idea of “herd immunity” has been attacked, even though it seems lots of scientists seem to support the idea, does that mean it now makes sense to challenge claims that “the science is settled” on a particular topic? Just thought I’d ask.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
30 comments to Discussion point |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
The hallmark of sound science is the ability to make accurate predictions. Climate science does make predictions, it has been doing so for decades. In every case the predicted thing either didn’t happen or the opposite happened. The word climate in climate scientist is like the word witch in witch doctor.
I’m not sure what you mean by saying the idea of herd immunity has been “attacked”.
But besides that, it is interesting to compare climate science with the current epidemiology going on.
I’ve yet to see any scientist refusing to share data. It all seems to be being published open-access. I’ve not noticed papers and evidence being kept behind paywalls. Anyone can download much of the data (although it’s still true that some is hard to find, if you’re not familiar with the sources) and analyse it for themselves. They’re not cherrypicking data favourable to their conclusions, so far as I can tell. They’re not telling people with questions or disagreements to shut up. They’ve specifically said that many of those scientists disputing their conclusions are on the committees, and that there is a free-for-all discussion/debate going on in academic circles. I’ve seen several papers disputing the main findings published, and not seen anyone in authority objecting, telling them to shut up, telling people to ignore them, calling them ‘deniers’, or blocking their funding. Most of those papers disputing their findings I’ve seen seem to be saying things are even worse than they claim, not better. They seem willing to admit the limitations of their models, and emphasise how little they know. The scientists in their papers at least haven’t engaged in political advocacy for any particular solution – just set out the predicted consequences of policy, and agreed that the economic impact is and should be a countervailing consideration. They seem to freely accept that there may be alternative policy approaches, like the hydroxychloroquine treatment, that might shortcut all the more severe measures, although they are insisting on waiting for evidence on that. And governments are actually taking it seriously, and acting rapidly, which they haven’t with climate change.
On the whole, I don’t see any of the signs of Cargo Cult science that so characterised Climate Science, and I was fairly heavily involved in that. But I’m open to anyone showing me some, as I was way back then.
Nullius nails it, except for this:
Yes, they are taking it seriously, but most of them did not act rapidly enough.
And some governments are not taking responsibility for their mistakes.
Cuomo could have got 15K ventilators at a discount a few years ago and preferred to establish triage rules. (He seems to be doing well now, but i think that he should have put roadblocks all around NY City 2 weeks ago.)
DeBlasio told people that there is nothing to worry about on March 10, when Italy went into the 1st stage of lockdown. Now he blames Trump.
The mayor of New Orleans also blames Trump, for letting her go ahead with Mardi Gras.
PS: … and Sadiq Khan told people on March 3 that the Tube does not pose any serious risk of contagion.
Think of herd immunity as not unlike the fire suppression method of adding nitrogen to, or removing oxygen from, a building’s atmosphere, so that oxygen levels fall to c.13% from c. 20%. Humans may still breathe the air pretty normally, as oxygen levels suffice for gaseous exchange in the lungs, but fire cannot catch, paper does not burn after ignition as the oxygen level is too low.
Similarly, with a high level of immunity in a ‘herd’ (for we are but sheep and cattle to our masters), an attacking virus fails to propogate as it cannot latch on to new, vulnerable hosts in sufficient numbers.
I think J.P. is asking if people can be reinfected – i.e. if “herd immunity” is meaningless, because people who seem to have recovered from the virus can be infected with it again.
I had a conversation with a person in contact with the higher levels of government about this very question – but, sadly, the answer I got was unclear. My interpretation of what the person was saying (it can be no more interpretation – as the government is so unclear) was that “probably” people could not be reinfected. Not a perfect answer – but better than the chanting of slogans which is what most public figures, and the media, are doing every day.
I did just hear a figure for the number of dead cited (on Sky News) – it seems we in the United Kingdom have now passed the thousand dead mark.
Also the authorities are telling us that we will be under the present rules (or something like them) for “months”, perhaps “six months or longer”.
That is interesting because the incubation period of the virus is two weeks.
So, in a rational universe, the period under the present restrictions (even if one agrees that the current restrictions are correct) would be just over two weeks (say three weeks) – not “months” or “six months or more”.
What the official people are saying only makes sense if they expect the United Kingdom to carry on IMPORTING the virus.
After all the borders have still, I am told, NOT been closed. So even if the virus vanished from the U.K. tomorrow, it would be imported again.
There is also, as far as I am aware, very little discussion of treatments for the virus in the United Kingdom.
The American left (Google-Youtube and so on) is very irritated (to put it mildly), by any suggestion of using medicines to save lives from the virus. It would be nice if the British authorities had a different attitude – but I have seen no sign of a different attitude.
I hope I am misunderstanding what the British authorities are saying – and it is quite possible that I am misunderstanding it, as I find if very difficult to listen to them due to their practice of chanting slogans (such as “protect the NHS” – every public figure says these words again-and-again-again).
I find it very difficult indeed to listen to people who do not logically explain their policy, and just chant slogans instead. So I may have misunderstood what they are saying.
If I were to take them literally what they are saying is that human lives are an after thought (if even that) – and what is important is “protecting” a government institution. But surely that can NOT be what they mean.
Perhaps it would be best if I just stopped listening to “public figures” as I do not understand the way they speak, and listening to them endlessly repeating slogans is leading my mind in the direction of conspiracy theories (that they are doing all this on purpose) and I do NOT want to collapse into conspiracy theories.
I repeat I do NOT think this being done on purpose – on the contrary I think the authorities are honestly doing what they think best to protect human lives. But the way they speak is driving me up the wall. The way they speak is driving me to madness.
Stop endlessly repeating slogans, and explain your policy and your logical reasons for following this policy.
Not in their papers, no. But extensive lock-downs are being proposed left, right and centre by scientists.
Apparently humans won’t react badly to being cooped up for 3 months, and economies will not be affected. They are taking a political position — that reducing the immediate death toll trumps all — without thought to other political positions.
“I had a conversation with a person in contact with the higher levels of government about this very question – but, sadly, the answer I got was unclear. My interpretation of what the person was saying (it can be no more interpretation – as the government is so unclear) was that “probably” people could not be reinfected.”
That’s about right.
“That is interesting because the incubation period of the virus is two weeks. So, in a rational universe, the period under the present restrictions (even if one agrees that the current restrictions are correct) would be just over two weeks (say three weeks) – not “months” or “six months or more”.”
The problem is, they don’t believe the measures will stop the virus spreading completely. Some people are still going out to work. There are the doctors and nurses. There are the supermarket staff, the delivery drivers, the volunteer helpers, and of course people who don’t follow the rules. So they expect it will keep spreading, even under the lock-down, but much slower. They won’t know how much slower until they see how the figures change in a couple of weeks.
The incubation period (the time between getting infected and first showing symptoms is between 4 and 11 days, about 6 days on average. Then you get a week of mild illness. Most people then get better, but about 10-15% get the more serious form, with breathing difficulties and go into hospital. Those who die usually do so about 2 weeks later. Those who survive can take 3 or 4 weeks to get better. And there are stories (I’ve not checked) that the virus can hang around in the system for a month afterwards.
So it’s a lot longer than 2-3 weeks, even if we stop transmission completely, which we won’t.
“But extensive lock-downs are being proposed left, right and centre by scientists.”
They say, basically, that if you don’t lock down then millions could die. If you do, that obviously has an economic cost. That’s not advocating one solution or the other. That’s just telling politicians what the consequences are.
“Apparently humans won’t react badly to being cooped up for 3 months, and economies will not be affected.”
They have certainly said explicitly that economies will be hugely affected, and they’ve had psychologists giving advice on how to cope, so it’s pretty apparent that they’re well aware it’s going to affect people.
But the alternative is millions dead – and when offered a choice between millions dead and lock-down, the British public are 93% in favour of lock-down. The politicians, who make the decision, have paid attention to that. It’s as simple as that.
Nobody is happy about this. Not the scientists, not the politicians, and not the people. All the options currently open are bad.
Thank you Nullius in Verba.
I may not agree with all you say – but you have explained what you believe and your reasons for believing it.
I wish you were in a position of authority (perhaps you are – I do not know) and were speaking on the television and so on.
I repeat the people who do speak on the television (and so on) are driving me to madness with their bizarre way of speaking – their chanting of slogans.
There is still the baffling failure to close the borders – which should have been closed months ago.
And the baffling lack of interest in developing medicines or deploying existing medicines to treat the virus.
It seems to my simple mind that there are only two numbers that really matter when we are looking at this – the percentage of the population to be infected, and the morbidity of the disease.
There is a website that uses the latest stats to calculate morbidity for different cohorts of the population, in different regions of the world. I use that website for the following …
So, for example, the morbidity for males 40-49 in the UK with no other complicating factors is currently calculated at 0.47% (or just under 5 per 1000 infected). Since there are around 4.5 million men in that group in the UK (assuming that none of them have complicating factors, which of course isn’t true), we can do some simple math to project fatalities.
If 20% of that cohort get infected, we would expect (.2 x 4.5million x 0.0047) deaths, or around 4200 men in that cohort.
If the infection rate is twice that, twice the number of deaths. And the older cohorts have higher and higher morbidities.
Naturally any policy has both costs and benefits, but it doesn’t seem implausible to me at all to suppose that the medical (as opposed to economic) effects of this virus might be devastating if left unchecked. I think erring a little on the side of caution in this case seems warranted – my libertarianism takes a back seat to basic civilizational survival, whether the threat is Islam or socialism or virii.
The point of herd immunity is not to protect individuals but to protect the herd from contagion; achieved either through exposure or vaccination.
Every immune individual, either through exposure or vaccination, reduces the theoretical basic reproduction number to the effective reproduction number.
If a vaccine is not in the foreseeable future, then pharmaceutical pre-exposure prophylaxis until a vaccine has been found is going to be the best way to achieve effective herd immunity, and hence reduce effective reproduction number.
We better hope some of these clinical trials, of available pharmaceuticals, are effective as PrEP for SARS-CoV 2.
It is flu+ at worst and the world/UK economy is being turned to shite by the day.
The shops are not only having everybody queuing outside but Tesco are rationing to one of everything –which likely means they have a supply pinch and lots of us will be in soviet style queues all fucking day before long.If the food holds out.
And one of Blojos health turds is talking about 6 months of this.
The economy will be fucked in two more weeks and a universe of funny money isn’t going to save them.
I predict one more week–two absolute tops– before mass resistance to this govt created disaster begins.
A factor in that will be the absence of “exponential” mass deaths causing even the dumbest to realise that the whole thing is hot air. Two more weeks max and even those dumbest will tumble that they are being bullshitted by political hacks desperate not to admit they crapped their pants over nothing.
NiV: “But the alternative is millions dead – and when offered a choice between millions dead and lock-down, the British public are 93% in favour of lock-down. ”
Probably because they think it a temporary measure. Over in a month. It isn’t.
The untruth, is that we will somehow escape an high level of mortality, we can’t.
A larger number of the aged, old and infirm die this year, but a large number of people are going to be impoverished, the health service put under extreme strain, food production chain disrupted, commerce and industry will be decimated, already the much vaunted ‘service industry’ is a smoking hole.
and “We will be paying for this year for decades to come ..” — Neil Ferguson.
and all to save maybe, 250,000 who will probably be dead with-in 18 months anyway.
Neil Ferguson: “We don’t know what the level of ‘excess’ deaths will be, in this epidemic, by excess deaths I mean by the end
of the year, what proportion of those people who died from COVID-19 would have died any-how, but it might be as much as half – half to two thirds of the deaths we are seeing from covid-19 . Because it is affecting people either at the end of their lives or with poor health conditions.”
@Mr Ecks, I do hope you’re right that mass resistance begins in a couple of weeks, but I have my doubts. People will indeed sometimes rise up and participate in mass protests – the Countryside March and Iraq war marches immediately spring to mind – but I feel this is different. Far too many people have been frightened by the bogeyman of a ‘deadly virus’ (I have friends who refer to it in exactly those terms) that fear will overcome clarity of vision. Thus the majority of people will remain supine to “protect the NHS” (which has become this year’s “think of the children”).
I really hope you’re right, but there’s a risk that a couple of weeks hence the government will escalate their measures and we’ll be seeing the armed forces on the streets. I pray I’m wrong.
Mr Ecks, judging by the horrific data out of Northern Italy, describing COVID-19 as just “hot air” is, well, hot air by you. It is far, far worse than a bad flu season, certainly in terms of its global reach, severity and speed.
That does not mean that I agree with an indefinite lockdown, as is being suggested in some quarters. The UK government must give more visibility on how the controls will be unwound, with some guidance as to when. Saying “we will wait and see” is not good enough.
In a previous thread the commenter by the name of Gary criticised the herd immunity idea on the grounds that people who had had the virus can get it again. Well, even leaving aside that this person seems to be an ass, I suspect he is not alone in thinking that. And that is why I drew the parallel with AGW because we have, right now, a case of a scientific theory that is being challenged, while other theories, also full of political importance, are treated as sacrosanct, often by the same people.
I have also noticed from my other social media interactions how many of those Remainers who were for “open borders” seem more keen on shutting everything down than with many of my Brexiteer acquaintances. Curious, no?
There is a difference between ‘getting the virus again‘ and being infected and/or ill on account of having the virus. The virus may (and indeed will) mutate, and such mutations may or may not make it more or less virulent. At present, seeing that the government is not testing to see how far the virus has gone into the population and how many people are dying from it as opposed to with it. The more people have it, the lower the death rate becomes.
Given that on an average day in the UK, 1,687 people die anyway, and we are not getting much talk from HMG of figures on:
1. Number of deaths per day.
2. Number of deaths where the deceased had traces of the virus
3. Number of deaths where the deceased’s death was materially contributed to by the virus.
4. Number of deaths where the deceased’s death was materially contributed to by the virus to the exclusion of influenza or other viruses.
5. Additional deaths caused principally by the virus.
I think that we can say that there is an awful lot to justify.
And the same for Italy.
Mr Ed:
“3. Number of deaths where the deceased’s death was materially contributed to by the virus.
4. Number of deaths where the deceased’s death was materially contributed to by the virus to the exclusion of influenza or other viruses.”
A lot of people who have ‘pre-existing or underlying conditions’, Diabetes, obesity, cardio vascular or pulmonary conditions, many of which come with old age anyway. These people may have a very rough time of it if they contract the virus.
So far, not a great deal of difference with influenza.
99% of disease prunes away the old, infirm. It’s just the natural process.
Boomers are outraged though. It was scheduled that 80 was going to be the new 30 this year, and COVID-19 has put something of a spoke in their wheels.
I don’t believe this is ‘deadly’, the figures out of Italy are suspect because every death ‘with’ is being counted as ‘of’.
The worst case in my view? This might turn out to be a very common, rapidly transmitted virus, , it will come round each year in a new form, outstripping the development of a vaccine. Unlike the common cold/’flu’ it will be far more deadly to the vulnerable. So in the long run there will not be increases in life expectancy, more likely decreases: it will show in the stats as an increase of that ‘winter excess mortality’. You will get old, your immune system will weaken, you die — with not of.
None of us are immortal.
We don’t know how long it will last. If any government statement deserves (cautious) scepticism, it is recent government scientific advisor speculations on how long it will last.
I hope the talk of mass tests being rolled out soon in the UK is correct, and these tests prove more accurate than the ones the Chinese use – or at least than the ones the Chinese are dumping on the rest of the world (they may be keeping the more quality-controlled ones for themselves, but doing that presupposes a level of clarity and comprehension that I hesitate to ascribe to a communist-run state). The sooner we get mass test results for antibodies, the sooner we can both attempt some lockdown roll-back and the sooner we will know a good deal more than we do – and Boris et al will know it too.
There may then be the danger that those who have made strong and costly statements – both advisors and those advised – will wish to go on believing them, not the fresh data. Whatever your view of Boris’ absolute tendency towards that, it seems clear that any even remotely-possible alternative PM (save Farage, I guess) would be even more likely to stick with their advisors and their policy long past some increasingly-obvious sell-by date, so we (and the US, I think) are in “good (least awful) as was ever likely” territory.
Meanwhile I from time to time review what I feel I have good reason to suspect in the light of what I actually know and/or know I don’t yet know, to avoid making statements so strongly phrased that they might expose me to that temptation in time to come. 🙂
“Probably because they think it a temporary measure. Over in a month. It isn’t.”
There are always low information voters who aren’t paying attention, but it’s been pretty clear from where I’m sat.
Things can always change, of course. If someone invents a ‘cure’, and overload is no longer an issue, then after the current wave is over they might indeed be able to change tack.
“and all to save maybe, 250,000 who will probably be dead with-in 18 months anyway.”
Again, it would *only* be 250,000 if the mortality rate doesn’t go up because the NHS is overloaded. But if the peak happens all at once in the next couple of months, the NHS *would* be overloaded.
Look at the chart here. You can see from that how many in each age bracket get hospitalised, how few of those die, and how the deaths are concentrated in the older age brackets – the people with compromised health who were likely to die soon anyway. But you need to think about what would happen if those hospital beds aren’t available.
Ferguson didn’t try to estimate that, because there’s no way of knowing yet how many serious cases would die if they couldn’t get treated in hospital, but it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see that it could be bad. It wouldn’t just be the old, either.
(I should note, the CDC who produced the graph complained that age data on most of the patients was missing, so that’s the plot only for the cases they have data for. It could be heavily biased.)
“In a previous thread the commenter by the name of Gary criticised the herd immunity idea on the grounds that people who had had the virus can get it again. Well, even leaving aside that this person seems to be an ass, I suspect he is not alone in thinking that. And that is why I drew the parallel with AGW because we have, right now, a case of a scientific theory that is being challenged, while other theories, also full of political importance, are treated as sacrosanct, often by the same people.”
Thanks – I see.
The scientific theory of herd immunity already includes that point – there are plenty of other diseases for which immunity does not last. It’s true that when they introduced the idea to the public they did seem to ‘assume’ it didn’t apply here and that we could be confident that survivors would be immune and herd immunity would ultimately give us an exit. I don’t know whether they genuinely just assumed it themselves, or whether they were aware all along, but figured it was their best shot anyway, a calculated risk to set against the option of greater economic and social damage, and just left it out of the public presentations. They do have reasons to think it unlikely, and they might have thought it unecessarily alarmist to make a point of saying it when they were fairly sure it wasn’t so. On having it pointed out, none of the experts seem to be disagreeing that it’s possible, or saying that people are wrong to point it out. Quite different to climate scientists.
But if we don’t develop immunity, then there’s not a lot we can do about it. The plague will keep going around and around, wiping off another slice each time, until it gets down to the number of people who genuinely are immune. If that’s so, then it’s even more important to get a lid on it now, and our current policy would be just as it is. It would change our strategy a few months down the line, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
It’s only going to be an issue after the current surge, when there will be a more significant number who have previously had it, and who could potentially go back to work. At that time, I would expect them to have completed the research to find out. One step at a time.
Italy:
One more time
1–100,000 illegal Chinese tat-factory workers courtesy of CCP wandering around for months before Coro recognised. Regular supplies of infected via plane and “New Silk Road”. Lots returning from Chinese New Year February home visits.
2- More extended families with old folk in the house.
3–Kissy-kissy culture.
4- It now seems obvious there was a complete lack of preparedness and an Italian style even-more-shambolic system than elsewhere.
5-Crap counting–anybody and everybody listed as coro death if it is anywhere in the area.Little testing and tests being largely useless anyway
6-Worldwide deaths are not even an average years flu rounding figure–by a mile. Nor has a lockdown had much effect on a 3-4 week incubation period illness. In Italy there will be lots of ord flu/pnuemo/cold deaths included in with coro figs. Real coro deaths will likely be the same as worldwide–older people mostly with lots of trouble already.
7–Already a TB epidemic in N Italy.
8–Already many more Italians have likely had the disease and never noticed it or shrugged it off. Actual figs of infected MUCH higher than known –thus bringing death rate back into normal range by self. Prob true worldwide.
Also Dr Bill Sardi on Lew Rockwell points out that coro symptoms are the same as those of zinc deficiency. The Zlotsky(sic) US doctor has now CURED 100% of 699 coro sufferers using chloroquine and ZINC suppliements. Interesting.
While all this waffle about who and how many are going to die of coro is going on–the world economy is headed up shite creek. The results of which will leave us with WHATEVER coro can manage–a bad winter flu I suspect once all the bullshit is wiped away–PLUS a collapsed economy meaning many more will die . Even hopefully excluding conflicts and wars quite likely caused by a vast rerun of the 1930s –made much worse by a set of state vermin worldwide full of socialist garbage. As the latest mess shows all too clearly.
And whatever coro might do–we won’t have the money to do jack shit about it anyway.
The lock down needs to end NOW.
Nullius.
There are already suggested possible treatments for the virus – but the powers that be appear to be uninterested in them. Nor does there appear to be any interest in developing better medicines (if there is something wrong with the medicines that various American medical doctors have suggested). Perhaps there is interest in private – but in public the authorities just chant slogans (it is almost impossible to listen to them – due to the bizarre way they speak).
As for “low information voters” who “are not paying attention”.
Both of these points are NOT relevant.
If people are “low information” then give them information (do not just chant slogans at them and give them orders – which every public figure seems to be ding) and people will “start paying attention” when the economy collapses.
Then they may pay attention rather brutally – I hope people will NOT turn on each other, but (rather) will turn their (hopefully polite) attention to the people whose orders have caused the chaos.
Also, even in the United Kingdom (a land where the establishment have turned avoiding personal responsibility into an art form – see, for example, how Sir Charles Trevelyan and General Douglas Haig were both REWARDED for their terrible failures), someone is going to have to take personal responsibility for the FAILURE TO CLOSE THE BORDERS.
The borders of the United Kingdom should have been closed months ago.
Who made the decision that the borders NOT be closed? And when is this individual, or individuals, going to resign?
To place most of the population under House Arrest is not J.S. Mill suggesting than an individual plague carrier can be placed under house arrest. There has been no real effort to even work out who has the virus and who does not.
And to place most of the population under House Arrest whilst leaving the borders of the nation OPEN TO THE VIRUS, is something that should not be just forgotten.
Someone must have made these decisions – the decisions did not just appear from nowhere.
Orders imply someone (a person – or persons) who is giving the orders – and that person must be personally responsible for the consequences of the orders they give. Saying “I am sorry” is not enough.
I remember Prime Minister Theresa May saying (in response to her mistakes in relation to the 2017 General Election) “I put my hand up – I take responsibility” I politely waited for the lady to then say “and, therefore, I resign”, but the lady did NOT say those words. It was impossible to have any respect for the lady after the lady said “I put my hand up – I take responsibility” but then did NOT say “and, therefore, I resign”.
The matter was regarded as sufficiently urgent for the Secretary of State for Health to make regulations on 10th February 2020 regarding the Coronavirus.
Note that on their face it states:
Yet nothing was done to close the borders, nor has that yet been done. The bars have closed, the borders have not, albeit individuals may be quarantined, or turned away and may find it difficult to reach the UK.
And a 389-or so page Bill was brought into Parliament and voted on in 7 days this month, from 19th to 25th March 2020. How was it all drafted so quietly in that period between 10th February 2020 and 19th March 2020?
The Cabinet and all MPs and Peers who voted for the Act are responsible.
Mr EckS: “The lock down needs to end NOW.”
Actually, I think it too late. Even if they raised the lockdown. Many companies are already out of business. That’s to say nothing of the financial and credit structures that cannot be unwound in a coherent manner.
With it, much of so called ‘public service’ is gone too. Including the health service, in which name it was all done.
“There are already suggested possible treatments for the virus – but the powers that be appear to be uninterested in them.”
Where on Earth did you get that idea?
There are drug trials going on at Oxford, right now, treating 3000 high-risk Coronavirus patients with Hydroxychloroquine. There are more vaccine trials going on at Oxford, Aberdeen, and no doubt other places. There’s plenty of interest.
Problem is, the drugs have side effects – they can cause liver and kidney damage in a subset of patients, neither of which are good if you are in intensive care fighting off Covid-19. There are only small, anecdotal/observational trials, with lots of dodgy red flags around them. There aren’t enough subjects to exclude random coincidence, some of the subjects dropped out part way through (or were dropped) for unknown reasons, and one paper was nodded through peer review in less than a day, possibly because the lead author of the paper was also the editor of the journal it got published in.
It’s not as bad as some of the snake oil cures other people are selling, and medical researchers are seriously interested, but at the moment we don’t know that the treatment is not riskier than the disease.
“If people are “low information” then give them information (do not just chant slogans at them and give them orders – which every public figure seems to be ding) and people will “start paying attention” when the economy collapses.”
The scientists are on TV every day giving information, and there’s tons more on the web.
The paper much of this is based on is on the web, freely available. It was picked up and referenced on here within days of it coming out. It’s been cited and dissected numerous times since, here, elsewhere on the web, and even on TV. I don’t watch the TV coverage much – too full of soppy social media stuff – but even in the little I’ve seen, there have been graphs and stuff explaining reasons and consequences. The information is available.
The problem I think, rather, is that some people don’t like and don’t agree with the information, and so ignore or reject it. That’s a different problem.
“Then they may pay attention rather brutally – I hope people will NOT turn on each other, but (rather) will turn their (hopefully polite) attention to the people whose orders have caused the chaos.”
Most of the population understand very well that it is the virus that has caused the problem. The world is faced with a rapidly spreading virus that, if health services are overwhelmed and no longer able to treat everybody, could kill millions of them. They understand that the politicians are in a hard place. (Trump’s big claim for the next election was the economy, and he’s just had to dump all the progress he’d made. The people understand, though, and he’s more popular. Boris was hoping to use his 5 years to start a free market economic revival, and again has just had to dump his plans. He’s got more popular, too.) Most of the population understands very well it is going to hit the economy badly – the TV is full of hardship stories about people who have lost their livelihoods and can no longer pay the bills, or can’t get basic needs. But they consider that better than watching them die.
So they’re a lot more likely to “pay attention rather brutally” to the people still in denial about that, who put everbody at risk by breaking or resisting the quarantine rules.
“The borders of the United Kingdom should have been closed months ago.”
With hindsight, knowing what we know now, yes, probably. With the data we had back then, and bearing in mind the economic impact and disruption of closing the borders every time any possible pandemic pops up – like the recent flu epidemics – I’m sure there would have been people calling for their heads if they’d shut the borders and it had turned out to be a false alarm. It would mean a lot of British people stranded abroad, for a start. They’d complain.
The government started off by trying to act with the minimum impact on the economy, in case it was a false alarm. When they realised it wasn’t a false alarm, and it was almost too late, they acted decisively. The public aren’t going to blame them much for that. We weren’t prepared, and it’s turned into a chaotic scramble, as they struggle to recover. There will no doubt be many lessons to learn from this. But at the moment the Tories are more popular with the public than they have ever been, and Boris is personally more trusted. For the time being, the public are being calm and sensible, and support the measures taken, and the government’s reasoning. Of course, that can always change in future, but I’d lay no money on how it might do so if it did. Not necessarily the way you would want or expect it to, either. They might shift views to support more authoritarian government, for example. (Shutting borders, for example, is a distinctly authoritarian approach.)
If there is going to be any blame-casting and resignations, it will only be *after* the crisis is over. Nobody wants to start playing political games in the middle of an emergency.
“There has been no real effort to even work out who has the virus and who does not.”
Because, as I explained earlier, there’s no point, yet. Until the total gets above about 5% of the population, you can’t even track it’s progress accurately. (Like the way opinion polls are only accurate to a few percent.) And they don’t have the laboratory capacity yet to do that many tests – they’re running out of the chemicals needed to do the tests, and they have only so much equipment and so many trained staff. It costs money and resources, that could be better spent elsewhere. And they’re not sure the tests are accurate enough – I heard the Spanish have had some problems with dodgy tests bought on the international market giving inaccurate results. It takes time to validate a test. And just because somebody is clear now, it doesn’t mean they’re going to still be clear tomorrow.
It’s frustrating, and it’s scary, but nobody is going to be able to fix this problem overnight. It’s also a worrying time for liberty, but at the moment the public is in no mood to listen to people saying “Let them die. Our liberty to spread lethal diseases is more important.” You have to offer a better solution, one that solves the problem we all face without the downsides. You have to offer better evidence, and new data. Invent stuff. Start new businesses to deliver people’s new needs. Offer solutions, not problems. Demonstrate the power of the free market. Moaning isn’t going to be enough to turn the tide.
Sure. In the case of the USA, Trump and his expert team are on television every day, giving us their version of information. Then, the Democrats bring on their own experts to tell us that the first set of information is wrong, evil, and probably fattening.
Having run enough trials – having faced, and hired, sufficient “experts” to understand that many will say quite convincingly whatever it behooves them to say – I can attest that “expert” is synonymous with “whore” often enough so that, if you are not an equal expert in the field being discussed, you have no clue which expert is a whore and which is not. (Heck, we listened to hundreds of “experts” tell us through three years of trial that silicone breast implants were mutagenic.) And, in the face of so much completely contradictory information – it’s the end of the world, it’ll be cured in three weeks – there is no possibility that at least half of the experts aren’t whores – and that doesn’t discount the possibility that the percentage is actually much higher.
So, “listen to the experts” has lost much meaning, and does us no good so long as we still need to choose which experts deserve our attention. We need experts to help us choose our experts . . . 😛
“I can attest that “expert” is synonymous with “whore” often enough so that, if you are not an equal expert in the field being discussed, you have no clue which expert is a whore and which is not.”
Sure. But you can’t simultaneously complain that they’re not giving us the information, and then complain when they do.
Fundamentally, the problem of which expert to trust is unsolvable. Trusting those ‘experts’ purely on the basis of whether you *like* what they’re saying is untenable, too. If you want to know, to have confidence in your opinions, you have to learn how to understand the issues yourself, read the papers, analyse the data, and test your understanding against people who disagree. As they say, “Learn to Code.”
Everyone else just believes whatever their tribal leaders tell them to believe.
Cool. I just have to become a Harvard-educated virologist with experience. Even they can’t seem to agree, though.
Of course I can, if they give me that information occulted in noise to the point where it has no value for me.
“…information occulted in noise…”
Ah, well. Free speech and open debate does rather result in “the race where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat”.