Macro, macro, macro viewpoint.

[BT63]

As I suspected: we could be waiting some time for an effective vaccine because according to this Reuters article, the virus has already produced 198 known mutations (and probably many more that we don't know about).

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-healt ... KKBN22I1FQ

Extract from article:
'.....Balloux said the 198 small genetic changes, or mutations, that the study identified appeared to have independently occurred more than once. These may hold clues to how the virus is adapting and help in efforts to develop drugs and vaccines.
“A major challenge to defeating viruses is that a vaccine or drug might no longer be effective if the virus has mutated,” Balloux said. “If we focus our efforts on parts of the virus that are less likely to mutate, we have a better chance of developing drugs that will be effective in the long run.”.....'

And that is why my earlier reply suggested we should have told the vulnerable to hide and the rest of us continue as normal, having mostly just a mild or moderate illness and gaining natural resistance without needing a vaccine. Prioritise food delivery slots for the vulnerable, the rest of us have to rough it and push a trolley round the shop.
No need for a shutdown leading to a depression.

[dealtn]

The clear conclusion is that macro economic policy based on scientific models is unsatisfactory.

Well that might be your conclusion, but I don't think that is at all clear, and certainly not based on a single "clickbait" article that was written about 2 weeks ago.

Like many fields there will be competing experts, and you would hope there to be some form of peer review etc. You might conclude, in hindsight, that over reliance on a single model was a suspect strategy, but to dismiss all science and models in making policy is a recipe for more frequent, and larger errors, I would have thought.

Are you really advocating a better alternative is for politicians to have carte blanche decision making based on their instinct?

Having written a lot of Monte Carlo code I can tell you that the answer you get is like that often asked by lawyers: "What answer do you want?"

In this case there was no peer review, it was assumed that Imperial were the best and their advice was actioned even though there was disagreement in the scientific community.

As things now are the politicians are able to argue, with some justification, that they were misled, but these kinds of decisions are political and although they might need to take advice from civil servants and experts, it is up to the folk giving advice to be sensible and for more than one point of view to be considered. It is hard to argue that this was the case with c19, nor in several of the previous predictions from Imperial.

Having science to aid decisions make sense but it has to be good science including all competing views. Political instinct is often dismissed but in many ways one can argue that it was better here than this flawed science.

Which (yet again) isn't what you said initially, hence my response!

You said "The clear conclusion is that macro economic policy based on scientific models is unsatisfactory"

The net economic result of all of this c19 policy has been a knocking back of the economy by several years which will have negative consequences for a long time to come and it has also knocked science back by probably a generations as it has been shown to be of limited practical value.

Regards,

Which (yet again) isn't what you said initially, hence my response!

You said "The clear conclusion is that macro economic policy based on scientific models is unsatisfactory"

Did you mean to say something along the lines of, "...in this instance the use of science, or the over-reliance on just one view, was sub-optimal with regards to the decisions taken."?

By saying what you did you give the impression that using scientific models is clearly unsatisfactory in arriving at policy outcomes. That is a completely different statement. Your explanation, in response to mine is much closer to the first statement than the latter, and I wouldn't have questioned it.

[odysseus2000]

Dealtn

You said "The clear conclusion is that macro economic policy based on scientific models is unsatisfactory"

Yes, basing macro economic policy on scientific models is imho unsatisfactory.

If you want me to qualify and expand I could change it to:

Yes, basing macro economic policy on scientific models as used in the UK is imho unsatisfactory based on what I have seen and my less knowledge of other countries, particularly the US and France is also consistent with this view.

There are many problems with using scientific models for macro economic policy which include:

The tendency for politicians to pay attention to the personality of the scientist, a difficult to appreciate and understand scientific uncertainty, the pack like behaviour of scientist advocating one approach knowing this will keep their research groups funded, the inability to quantify unexpected events and phenomenon in mathematical models that don't include the right set of uncertaities, a near religious like belief that science must be right, a dismissal of objections that are not proposed by someone coming from a favoured institution or from a lay person, a political desire for an outcome that the scientists then support by tweaking their models,...

I could go on and on but imho science input in to UK macro economic policy has so many huge flaws that it is often worse than useless, i.e. it makes a complex set of pros/cons arguments become so simplified that the big picture is missed. As Churchil put it, (paraphrase) "No matter how beautiful a theory, one should occasionally look at the practical results to see if it is working."

It is interesting to look at how non scientists view science, often helped by entertainers like Brian Cox who give the impression that science is the greatest collective endeavour of good will ever invented, whereas it is more like communism in wanting everyone to have a university degree and fashism in that it only wants a very small chosen few to influence decisions and have good funding.

The consequence of how science and politicians interact is that you create folk like Neil Ferguson and this leads to very wild political decisions and not just once. Ferguson has been involved in several infectious disease studies that have been greatly pessimistic and which have had very expensive consequences which leads to another trouble with science. The folk who can bring in funding become so valued at their institutions that they can not easily be fired even if they make demonstrable bad decisions.

Regards,

[dealtn]

Yes, basing macro economic policy on scientific models is imho unsatisfactory.

Now I don't know if I agree with you or not, nor do I understand whether you agree with yourself.

You said

"Having science to aid decisions make sense but it has to be good science including all competing views" which I broadly agree with.

Now you say.

"I could go on and on but imho science input in to UK macro economic policy has so many huge flaws that it is often worse than useless"

Which I can't agree with.

So what exactly do you think should have happened, without the benefit of hindsight, and how do you think that decision could have been arrived at, and implemented, without scientific input or advice?

[odysseus2000]

Yes, basing macro economic policy on scientific models is imho unsatisfactory.

Now I don't know if I agree with you or not, nor do I understand whether you agree with yourself.

You said

"Having science to aid decisions make sense but it has to be good science including all competing views" which I broadly agree with.

Now you say.

"I could go on and on but imho science input in to UK macro economic policy has so many huge flaws that it is often worse than useless"

Which I can't agree with.

So what exactly do you think should have happened, without the benefit of hindsight, and how do you think that decision could have been arrived at, and implemented, without scientific input or advice?

The steps that I think should have been implemented include:

Treating the virus as a threat to national security and invoking, which I believe are still on the books, quarantine laws, if not legislate to stop all mass gatherings, football, racing, restaurants…

Anyone retuning from areas with c19 to undergo 14 day mandatory quarantine, tagged if need be and to be transported home by vehicles that protected the driver with no use of public transport.

Closing of UK borders to none UK residents with exceptions for truck drivers as needed.

Legislate to allow trace and connect with grand father clause to allow tracking of exposed individuals and then quarantine everyone who has come into contact with them.

All shops and other gathering places to have manadatory temperature measurement, anyone with high temperature, issued with go home and quarantine orders, fines for no adherence.

Immediate large orders for PPE, Ventilators, testing kits, open up to all UK industry and with massive mask production

Mandatory wearing of masks for all interactions.

Competition to find best tools, materials, supplies etc with lottery sized winnings to anyone suggesting something that was used in quantity and with criminal penalties if anyone started steeling ideas.

Anti racketeering law on all suppliers. Anyone found hiking the price to go to the slammer for 60 days and fines of 6 months of turnover.

The sort of stuff that was done in many places and where the death rates are low.

I would not have gone down the route of complicated numerical modelling which is subject to so many uncertainties to be worthless especially as there was recent experience from South Korea and the SARS epidemic.

With these kinds of targeted measures we could likely have kept the economy running, saved a lot of lives and not endangered the NHS’s ability to function.

Regards,

[dealtn]

The steps that I think should have been implemented include:

Many of which were done to some degree or another. On the back of scientific advice.

I thought you were arguing that we shouldn't be listening to the views of scientists?

[odysseus2000]

The steps that I think should have been implemented include:

Many of which were done to some degree or another. On the back of scientific advice.

I thought you were arguing that we shouldn't be listening to the views of scientists?

Many of the things I suggested were not done, that is why the UK death rate is near the worst of all nations.

Our science advice was first herd immunity, do nothing and let every one get it, let big gathering take place, then it was that the simulations predict very high death rates, so lock down everyone but leave all the air ports open, don't measure temperatures, don't do track and trace.

The pragmatic approach of those nations who had fought SARS and those who nations who copied has produced much better outcomes. Here we have over 30,000 killed by the virus with uncertainties over care home deaths and such and we have poleaxed our economy too.

Probably things could have been done worse here, but that would take some ingenuity and we have created a huge legacy of debt for many business, with the small business sector in terrible trouble, all the ingredients for a depression.

IMHO the predominant reason for our unhappy situation is that the politicians followed UK science advice and that had they instead been pragmatic and followed the tactics of more experienced nations in fighting infectious disease we would be a lot better off both in people still alive and with a much stronger economy.

The economic damage has been magnified by the failure of the politicians to involve UK industry in large scale production of PPE etc instead trying to buy from world markets which were under intense pressure. The performance of Lord Deighton in this crisis has been nothing like that of Beaverbrook in the second war who he was supposed to emulate.

The whole UK establishment has made a very bad job of this war, has cost many unnecessary lives and has kicked the UK economy in to the gutter at the same time.

Regards,

[ReformedCharacter]

Many of the things I suggested were not done, that is why the UK death rate is near the worst of all nations.

Regards,

Difficult or impossible to prove given the variables between nations

RC

[dealtn]

The steps that I think should have been implemented include:

Many of which were done to some degree or another. On the back of scientific advice.

I thought you were arguing that we shouldn't be listening to the views of scientists?

Many of the things I suggested were not done, that is why the UK death rate is near the worst of all nations.

Our science advice was first herd immunity, do nothing and let every one get it, let big gathering take place, then it was that the simulations predict very high death rates, so lock down everyone but leave all the air ports open, don't measure temperatures, don't do track and trace.

The pragmatic approach of those nations who had fought SARS and those who nations who copied has produced much better outcomes. Here we have over 30,000 killed by the virus with uncertainties over care home deaths and such and we have poleaxed our economy too.

Probably things could have been done worse here, but that would take some ingenuity and we have created a huge legacy of debt for many business, with the small business sector in terrible trouble, all the ingredients for a depression.

IMHO the predominant reason for our unhappy situation is that the politicians followed UK science advice and that had they instead been pragmatic and followed the tactics of more experienced nations in fighting infectious disease we would be a lot better off both in people still alive and with a much stronger economy.

The economic damage has been magnified by the failure of the politicians to involve UK industry in large scale production of PPE etc instead trying to buy from world markets which were under intense pressure. The performance of Lord Deighton in this crisis has been nothing like that of Beaverbrook in the second war who he was supposed to emulate.

The whole UK establishment has made a very bad job of this war, has cost many unnecessary lives and has kicked the UK economy in to the gutter at the same time.

Regards,

Sorry, but the actions of other nations, who you literally suggest we follow, were based on scientific advice.

Yet again you are confusing the issue. You claim we shouldn't be following science, then literally give an example of "those nations who fought SARS..." who did precisely that!

What you are suggesting is that in this country the advice that was given, and followed, at various times, wasn't sufficiently good or robust (or challenged). That is a completely different argument to saying policy (wherever) shouldn't have science as one of its inputs. If you can't see the distinction it is pointless engaging further.

[redsturgeon]

https://dilbert.com/strip/2020-05-07?ut ... trip-image

I think Dilbert captures it...

John

[odysseus2000]

Dealtn
Sorry, but the actions of other nations, who you literally suggest we follow, were based on scientific advice.

Yet again you are confusing the issue. You claim we shouldn't be following science, then literally give an example of "those nations who fought SARS..." who did precisely that!

What you are suggesting is that in this country the advice that was given, and followed, at various times, wasn't sufficiently good or robust (or challenged). That is a completely different argument to saying policy (wherever) shouldn't have science as one of its inputs. If you can't see the distinction it is pointless engaging further.

I am saying that the politicians following UK science has got us into the pickle we are in and that if we had ignored what UK science, notably what Neil Ferguson was promoting, and followed the lead of other nations we would be in a very much better place both now with less dead and in the future with an economy that would have both provided all the PPE needed and which would not have been has severely hurt nor have as much debt.

There is science and there is bad science and the UK political establishment has followed bad science and that that will have severe negative economic effects going forwards along with all the unnecessary human loss and suffering.

I am also saying that although science needs to be considered in the political process, it should not be seen as infallible or used to action economic policy with out additional political considerations. I suspect UK science will have been set back a generation by the way it will have set up in politicians minds that it can not be trusted, a time comparable to the economic damage done by these bad policies.

Regards,

[dealtn]

Dealtn
Sorry, but the actions of other nations, who you literally suggest we follow, were based on scientific advice.

Yet again you are confusing the issue. You claim we shouldn't be following science, then literally give an example of "those nations who fought SARS..." who did precisely that!

What you are suggesting is that in this country the advice that was given, and followed, at various times, wasn't sufficiently good or robust (or challenged). That is a completely different argument to saying policy (wherever) shouldn't have science as one of its inputs. If you can't see the distinction it is pointless engaging further.

I am saying that the politicians following UK science has got us into the pickle we are in and that if we had ignored what UK science, notably what Neil Ferguson was promoting, and followed the lead of other nations we would be in a very much better place both now with less dead and in the future with an economy that would have both provided all the PPE needed and which would not have been has severely hurt nor have as much debt.

There is science and there is bad science and the UK political establishment has followed bad science and that that will have severe negative economic effects going forwards along with all the unnecessary human loss and suffering.

I am also saying that although science needs to be considered in the political process, it should not be seen as infallible or used to action economic policy with out additional political considerations. I suspect UK science will have been set back a generation by the way it will have set up in politicians minds that it can not be trusted, a time comparable to the economic damage done by these bad policies.

Regards,

Absolutely fine.

It's only taken two days for you to amend what you originally said then!

[ReformedCharacter]

I am saying that the politicians following UK science has got us into the pickle we are in and that if we had ignored what UK science, notably what Neil Ferguson was promoting, and followed the lead of other nations we would be in a very much better place both now with less dead and in the future with an economy that would have both provided all the PPE needed and which would not have been has severely hurt nor have as much debt.
Regards,

That at best is speculation. You seem to be suggesting that we had insufficient PPE because of our economy? Doesn't look that way to me.

RC

[JamesMuenchen]

I am saying that the politicians following UK science has got us into the pickle we are in and that if we had ignored what UK science, notably what Neil Ferguson was promoting, and followed the lead of other nations we would be in a very much better place both now with less dead and in the future with an economy that would have both provided all the PPE needed and which would not have been has severely hurt nor have as much debt.

There is no such thing as "UK science" and they were following the lead of other nations.

On the 11.03 (the day before BJ & Co were on UK TV talking about herd immunity) Mrs Merkel was on German TV talking about herd immunity.

What she actually said was that without existing immunity and without a vaccine then they predicted 70% infection-rate. That's what the science said. She didn't use the phrase but she was talking about herd immunity.

By the way, you've strayed well off the topic of this thread and into general coronavirus politics. There are specific threads set up for that already.

[odysseus2000]

That at best is speculation. You seem to be suggesting that we had insufficient PPE because of our economy? Doesn't look that way to me.

RC

Yes, I am suggesting that the prodcurement processes that have been used, trying to buy overseas ppe were not suited to a planetary emergency and that the policy should have been to get as much stuff manufactured here as possible. Of course then you are fighting over feed stocks but the general demand for most feedstocks is a lot lower than for PPE finished goods.

Had this been done UK industry would have benefitted and we would have supplies we could rely on, if too much we could have exported more, rather than as things were not putting a lot of orders into UK business and having some suppliers flogging stuff overseas.

Regards,

[dealtn]

That at best is speculation. You seem to be suggesting that we had insufficient PPE because of our economy? Doesn't look that way to me.

RC

Yes, I am suggesting that the prodcurement processes that have been used, trying to buy overseas ppe were not suited to a planetary emergency and that the policy should have been to get as much stuff manufactured here as possible. Of course then you are fighting over feed stocks but the general demand for most feedstocks is a lot lower than for PPE finished goods.

Had this been done UK industry would have benefitted and we would have supplies we could rely on, if too much we could have exported more, rather than as things were not putting a lot of orders into UK business and having some suppliers flogging stuff overseas.

Regards,

Well that depends on lead times as much as anything, surely.

Buy from a well known source, with equipment that meets the standard, and is known to work in the field. Which happens to be manufactured abroad, be in demand and has a 10 day wait, OR

Start sourcing a new manufacturer, based in the UK, whose new product isn't yet in the field, tested, and known to be of the required standard. The lead time might be 2 days or 2 months depending on how well the product works in the field against known competing standards.

Again you are in danger of straying off topic, but in the UK the procurement process, at least for PPE and ventilators was actually a mix of the two. The government gets blamed for the delays in the first approach, and also blamed for the slow deployment on the second. In addition a lot of firms that approached the government offering help, weren't able to meet the specifications, and couldn't deliver in volume.

It is hard for anyone at the top making decisions to win any praise in these kind of situations, and of course, relatively easy to earn scorn from "armchair experts".

[odysseus2000]

JamesMuenchen
There is no such thing as "UK science" and they were following the lead of other nations.

UK science is a major export market within the limits of academic turnover, both bringing in revenue for UK university and being sold as an attractive place for students and in terms of intellectual property and Royalty generation. The Imperial group is regularly cited as being an area of exceptional expertise.

We now have a very large number of academic institutions with science departments turning out many scientists each year, all currently carrying very heavy debt loads with 5% interest that many in subsequent science jobs struggle to support with a non-insignificant number never repaying their loans. I meet people like this regularly

UK science is actively promoted by the Royal Society and by the government and if you look at some of the Royal Society publications they detail how they believe UK science is a vital part of UK GDP. I personally disagree but that is the line that the Royal Society and their professor for the understanding of Science, Cox, actively promote.

People don't like to refer to UK science as an industry, but it passes all the tests.

Regads,

[ReformedCharacter]

That at best is speculation. You seem to be suggesting that we had insufficient PPE because of our economy? Doesn't look that way to me.

RC

Yes, I am suggesting that the prodcurement processes that have been used, trying to buy overseas ppe were not suited to a planetary emergency and that the policy should have been to get as much stuff manufactured here as possible. Of course then you are fighting over feed stocks but the general demand for most feedstocks is a lot lower than for PPE finished goods.

Had this been done UK industry would have benefitted and we would have supplies we could rely on

Regards,

Are you suggesting that the government chose not to get as much PPE manufactured here as possible and chose as an alternative to buy overseas instead of sourcing as much as possible from the UK and then purchasing what was unavailable from overseas?

RC

[odysseus2000]

That at best is speculation. You seem to be suggesting that we had insufficient PPE because of our economy? Doesn't look that way to me.

RC

Yes, I am suggesting that the prodcurement processes that have been used, trying to buy overseas ppe were not suited to a planetary emergency and that the policy should have been to get as much stuff manufactured here as possible. Of course then you are fighting over feed stocks but the general demand for most feedstocks is a lot lower than for PPE finished goods.

Had this been done UK industry would have benefitted and we would have supplies we could rely on

Regards,

Are you suggesting that the government chose not to get as much PPE manufactured here as possible and chose as an alternative to buy overseas instead of sourcing as much as possible from the UK and then purchasing what was unavailable from overseas?

RC

That is what I am being told by various contacts.

I have been 3d printing some visor shields and asked around as to why this job wasn't being done by folk with injection moulding kit etc who could make vastly more than a small bunch of folk like me who struggle to 3d print more than 12 in a day and was told approaches had been made to supply but they had received no orders.

The last lot of visors I sent out went to the local hospital Medical Assessment Unit. The recipient nurse said they were nearly out of stock and still needed what ever could be made.

Regards,