Fool me once....

[9873210]

People keep talking about science when they should be talking about engineering, economics and other frameworks.

Science is the systematic acquisition of knowledge of knowledge with a high degree of certainty. It is not about making decisions in the face of uncertainty. The scientific answer to uncertain is more experiments.

During a pandemic or other emergency some decisions need to be made now. You can't wait to learn more. Not making a decision is still a decision.
You need to make decisions on the basis of "more likely than not". This is not science and does not fit in the framework of science. Listen to Dr. Fauci talk about delaying the second dose of vaccine beyond the three or four weeks used in the trial. His argument was essentially that we have a double blind experiment that the standard interval works and we have no certainty on whether an extended interval works.

[XFool]

One problem I see with the science underlying all of these decisions is the confidence in the accuracy of the models.

To me there seems to be a pretty much impossible number of variables that can affect the future progression of a pandemic e.g. numerous individual characteristics of the pathogen itself (or pathogens when dealing with mutations), local climates and demography of outbreak locations, population densities and behaviours, local restrictions in place, vaccination and medication efficacy not to mention differing time functions for achieving efficacy, etc, etc, etc. Then couple that with the limited number of large scale pandemics for which reliable large granular data sets are available, and that's even if one epidemic or pandemic could realistically be compared with another due to the vast number of variables I just mentioned; there seems to me to be little meaningful opportunity to back-test models against past experience in a way that is likely to significantly increase confidence in a model's ability to predict the path of the next pandemic.

Putting those two factors together, the huge number of variables and the lack of any significant amount of meaningful data to back-test against, and I really am left wondering just how much uncertainty and variation there might have been in the various models that the government was looking at in the early days, and presumably still now.

Well yes. But that's just the way it is, hopefully better than studying the entrails of a goat. But do not forget that there have been epidemics of infectious diseases before, in other parts of the world. Plus people on Sage, e.g. Whitty, are experienced in such infectious epidemics - he has given public lectures on them, as I know. Plus there were an array of different models from different groups to consider, Sage would then presumably arrive at a consensus opinion.

[XFool]

People keep talking about science when they should be talking about engineering, economics and other frameworks.

Science is the systematic acquisition of knowledge of knowledge with a high degree of certainty. It is not about making decisions in the face of uncertainty. The scientific answer to uncertain is more experiments.

No, that's not good enough, IMO.

What do you mean by "experiments"? You can't do full controlled "experiments" on stars, galaxies or the universe. Does that mean astronomy and cosmology are not "science"? Same goes for palaeontology etc. (Plus Global Warming? )

But then you can do "experiments" on the above: where the observations, deductions and predictions are the "experiments".

During a pandemic or other emergency some decisions need to be made now. You can't wait to learn more. Not making a decision is still a decision.
You need to make decisions on the basis of "more likely than not". This is not science and does not fit in the framework of science.

Decision making may not in itself be a science, but I would hope decisions - particularly during a pandemic - are made on the basis of the best available information and scientific understanding.

Scientific understanding doesn't stand still, any more than a pandemic does (or it wouldn't be a pandemic!) so, for science, a pandemic would be a case of 'learning on the job'.

[Mike4]

People keep talking about science when they should be talking about engineering, economics and other frameworks.

Well surely we can all can remember where they got that idea from. Matt Hancock back in the beginning, who uttered the expression "We are making the right decisions, at the right times, guided by the science" more times than my telly screen would have survived, had I had one. At least once is every single media interview.

Then suddenly he stopped saying it. Not sure why.

[murraypaul]

Whether it is decision or inertia, we should probably believe the scientific advise given by Whitty, Vallance, SAGE etc was consistent with the decisions made.

I don't see why we should assume that.
The scientific advice is all around the risk of the virus. The government then has to balance that against the risk to the economy, and what the electorate will accept. Those are political decisions, not scientific ones. The science is one input to the decision.
Was there scientific advice recommending removing restrictions over the Christmas holidays?

[murraypaul]

During a pandemic or other emergency some decisions need to be made now. You can't wait to learn more. Not making a decision is still a decision.
You need to make decisions on the basis of "more likely than not". This is not science and does not fit in the framework of science. Listen to Dr. Fauci talk about delaying the second dose of vaccine beyond the three or four weeks used in the trial. His argument was essentially that we have a double blind experiment that the standard interval works and we have no certainty on whether an extended interval works.

Agreed, the decision to extent the vaccination interval was a risky one, that could have gone horribly wrong, but turned out to be good, and has to have made a big difference in suppressing the virus spread. It will probably turn out to have been the most significant correct decision made.

[XFool]

Whether it is decision or inertia, we should probably believe the scientific advise given by Whitty, Vallance, SAGE etc was consistent with the decisions made.

I don't see why we should assume that.
The scientific advice is all around the risk of the virus. The government then has to balance that against the risk to the economy, and what the electorate will accept. Those are political decisions, not scientific ones. The science is one input to the decision.

Trouble is... That idea is itself may be based on a simplistic assumption (which many seemed to go for): That it is EITHER the pandemic OR the economy

I am very far from believing that is correct and I'm not the only one. Rather, that the best thing for the pandemic is also the best thing for the economy.
Control of the pandemic = Better for the economy
Lose control of pandemic = Worse for the economy

Was there scientific advice recommending removing restrictions over the Christmas holidays?

I thought it was "Don't", but that is only my memory. Here is one news item:

Covid: Sage scientist says normal Christmas 'extreme wishful thinking' without 'radical action' to curb coronavirus

ITV News

[Nimrod103]

Was there scientific advice recommending removing restrictions over the Christmas holidays?

I thought it was "Don't", but that is only my memory. Here is one news item:

Covid: Sage scientist says normal Christmas 'extreme wishful thinking' without 'radical action' to curb coronavirus

ITV News

Except SAGE is not a formal grouping. AIUI no advice is given as a result of a majority vote. Each SAGE scientist is entitled to give their own views, in public. From one eminent scientist (at least) it is possible to get the Communist advice on the pandemic. So AIUI it is possible to quote anything from any particular scientist speaking in their own capacity. The question then remains - who does the Govt listen to most? I assume it is Whitty and Vallance, and their various assistant heads.

[MrFoolish]

Sunnypad

I agree, there is some madness at play here.

Basically, covid confers some small statistical risk to the boomer generation. And nothing must ever be allowed to act to the detriment of this group. Ergo, we must all wrap ourselves up in cotton wool until the end of time, whether vaccinated or not.

I exaggerate of course. But I think you'll find some truth in this.

[XFool]

Sunnypad

I agree, there is some madness at play here.

Basically, covid confers some small statistical risk to the boomer generation. And nothing must ever be allowed to act to the detriment of this group. Ergo, we must all wrap ourselves up in cotton wool until the end of time, whether vaccinated or not.

I exaggerate of course. But I think you'll find some truth in this.

Plus much misunderstanding.

But, anyone failing to properly grasp the issues at this point has clearly set their course and is determined to continue not understanding. So...

[88V8]

Basically, covid confers some small statistical risk to the boomer generation. Ergo, we must all wrap ourselves up in cotton wool until the end of time, whether vaccinated or not.

Well, we don't have to. Vaccine passports. Oh, but they're 'divisive'.

Mind you, there will be future pandemics. And the handling of this one sets a precedent, protect the elderly, that the yoof of today might one day find useful if ever they have the misfortune to get old.

V8

[servodude]

Basically, covid confers some small statistical risk to the boomer generation. Ergo, we must all wrap ourselves up in cotton wool until the end of time, whether vaccinated or not.

Well, we don't have to. Vaccine passports. Oh, but they're 'divisive'.

Mind you, there will be future pandemics. And the handling of this one sets a precedent, protect the elderly, that the yoof of today might one day find useful if ever they have the misfortune to get old.

V8

"Protect the NHS" though rather than the elderly wasn't it?
With a bit of "Protect your Pink Marshmallows" thrown in

Vaccine passports are definitely happening in principle (even if they're ultimately called something else)
- will be really interesting to see how wide spread the preferential treatment of the vaxed becomes

-sd

[murraypaul]

Basically, covid confers some small statistical risk to the boomer generation. And nothing must ever be allowed to act to the detriment of this group. Ergo, we must all wrap ourselves up in cotton wool until the end of time, whether vaccinated or not.

I think people also overstate the effectiveness of the vaccines, and think they are now immune.

[quote]The data from Public Health England looked at attendance to emergency care and deaths by vaccination status among delta confirmed cases in England, between February 1 and June 7, 2021.

It showed that of the 42 people who had died from the delta variant (that were confirmed) 12 of them had received two doses of a vaccine over two weeks before. Some 23 of the people who died were unvaccinated and seven had been given one dose of the vaccine over three weeks before they died.

[...]

One issue with the delta variant is that vaccines not appear to be as effective as against other variants until several weeks after the second dose. A single dose of a vaccine is only 33% effective against Delta Covid, according to Public Health England. Several weeks after a second dose, that figure rises to 60% for AstraZeneca and 88% for Pfizer.

[GeoffF100]

Except SAGE is not a formal grouping. AIUI no advice is given as a result of a majority vote. Each SAGE scientist is entitled to give their own views, in public. From one eminent scientist (at least) it is possible to get the Communist advice on the pandemic. So AIUI it is possible to quote anything from any particular scientist speaking in their own capacity. The question then remains - who does the Govt listen to most? I assume it is Whitty and Vallance, and their various assistant heads.

The government picks advice that they like and rejects advice that they do not like. If that works out badly, they blame the scientists - and anyone else they can find.

[Mike4]

Except SAGE is not a formal grouping. AIUI no advice is given as a result of a majority vote. Each SAGE scientist is entitled to give their own views, in public. From one eminent scientist (at least) it is possible to get the Communist advice on the pandemic. So AIUI it is possible to quote anything from any particular scientist speaking in their own capacity. The question then remains - who does the Govt listen to most? I assume it is Whitty and Vallance, and their various assistant heads.

The government picks advice that they like and rejects advice that they do not like. If that works out badly, they blame the scientists - and anyone else they can find.

A very succinct summary of how it works. Thank you and have a rec.

[MrFoolish]

Basically, covid confers some small statistical risk to the boomer generation. And nothing must ever be allowed to act to the detriment of this group. Ergo, we must all wrap ourselves up in cotton wool until the end of time, whether vaccinated or not.

I think people also overstate the effectiveness of the vaccines, and think they are now immune.

The data from Public Health England looked at attendance to emergency care and deaths by vaccination status among delta confirmed cases in England, between February 1 and June 7, 2021.

It showed that of the 42 people who had died from the delta variant (that were confirmed) 12 of them had received two doses of a vaccine over two weeks before. Some 23 of the people who died were unvaccinated and seven had been given one dose of the vaccine over three weeks before they died.

You state these people had died from the delta variant. But surely all we know is that they were diagnosed with the variant in the 28 days prior to their death. Perhaps covid speeded up their demise by a few days. Perhaps it wasn't the cause of death. How can we know?

[Mike4]

You state these people had died from the delta variant. But surely all we know is that they were diagnosed with the variant in the 28 days prior to their death. Perhaps covid speeded up their demise by a few days. Perhaps it wasn't the cause of death. How can we know?

One of them, possibly. Two even? Perhaps.

But all 42 seems highly unlikely.

And what about the thousands who may have died of Covid on day 29?

[Itsallaguess]

You state these people had died from the delta variant. But surely all we know is that they were diagnosed with the variant in the 28 days prior to their death. Perhaps covid speeded up their demise by a few days. Perhaps it wasn't the cause of death. How can we know?

One of them, possibly. Two even? Perhaps.

But all 42 seems highly unlikely.

And what about the thousands who may have died of Covid on day 29?

Co-morbidities have been a constant factor for poor COVID outcomes throughout this pandemic, and I think it's important to remember that many of those that aren't pulling through with this Delta variant, even where they've had two vaccine applications, will also have been suffering from difficult underlying health issues.

Here's a Telegraph article highlighting this important information -

So far there have been just 42 deaths from the delta variant, and only 12 in fully vaccinated people.

NHS leaders have previously said those dying after being fully vaccinated are also suffering from "profound co-morbidities".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/11/fully-vaccinated-people-account-5pc-delta-variant-infections/

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Mike4]

You state these people had died from the delta variant. But surely all we know is that they were diagnosed with the variant in the 28 days prior to their death. Perhaps covid speeded up their demise by a few days. Perhaps it wasn't the cause of death. How can we know?

One of them, possibly. Two even? Perhaps.

But all 42 seems highly unlikely.

And what about the thousands who may have died of Covid on day 29?

Co-morbidities have been a constant factor for poor COVID outcomes throughout this pandemic, and I think it's important to remember that many of those that aren't pulling through with this Delta variant, even where they've had two vaccine applications, will also have been suffering from difficult underlying health issues.

Here's a Telegraph article highlighting this important information -

So far there have been just 42 deaths from the delta variant, and only 12 in fully vaccinated people.

NHS leaders have previously said those dying after being fully vaccinated are also suffering from "profound co-morbidities".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/11/fully-vaccinated-people-account-5pc-delta-variant-infections/

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

The "co" bit in co-morbidity rather confirms that Covid was partly to blame, don'tcher think? Or does it mean something else?

[MrFoolish]

You state these people had died from the delta variant. But surely all we know is that they were diagnosed with the variant in the 28 days prior to their death. Perhaps covid speeded up their demise by a few days. Perhaps it wasn't the cause of death. How can we know?

One of them, possibly. Two even? Perhaps.

But all 42 seems highly unlikely.

And what about the thousands who may have died of Covid on day 29?

I agree all 42 would be highly unlikely. But why do you think it must be at the low end of the range? My impression has always been that covid predominantly finishes off those who didn't have long anyway*. Perhaps those who died having had two vaccines were at the extreme end of this spectrum?

I don't know why they don't present the risks in terms of likely reduction in life expectancy for different age groups and health conditions. They have always been happy to say smoking or drinking will knock X years off your life.

*I'm not saying this is a reason to be casual about it - rather I'm just trying to quantify things.