Hacked off with science…

– Daily stats:

Covid-19 statistics are being (mis)used (cf Ben Walker in The New Statesman for example) to argue that the UK approach to lockdown and its relaxation is dangerous.

The basis for these comparisons generally includes “analysis” of the number of new cases. But this “new cases” figure is a myth, it’s a guesstimate at best, because it only includes people who are tested.

At the Daily Briefing, the presenter of the now familiar slideshow gets to the daily tests and makes a comment along the lines of “despite the number of daily tests increasing significantly, the number of positive results continues to decline”. Think about that. It puts the “number of new cases” in a stark, artificial context. This number is NOT the number of new cases at all, it’s simply a measure of those who tested positive.

So using this as a basis to compare countries, who may be using rather different criteria, and may (or may not) have vastly better testing regimes etc. is just irresponsible nonsense. Nil points Mr Walker.

– “Briefing against”:

Is there disagreement amongst the members of the UK’s SAGE committee? Almost certainly!

When was the last time you put 50 or so experts in a room and asked them to comment on something important, and make recommendations based on the data they could all see? What do you mean, you’ve never done that? Doesn’t stop you knowing best though does it? Why let any proper understanding of process interfere with your self-seeking quest for an “exclusive” insight that propels you to the top of the media pack ratings. Let me politely suggest that a range of opinions is an almost inevitable outcome in any sort of committee environment like this. But there’s no scoop in that of course.

Now no-one, not even our most illustrious politicos and civil servants, has ever had to deal with a pandemic like this before. Hype is rife, but when people say “unprecedented” in the context of Covid-19 they are, perhaps just once, being honest. So it’s all hands on deck, and everyone’s on a roller coaster learning curve. Ideas will seem to be relevant in the moment, they’ll consume lots of time while people assess, or determine that there’s not enough data to actually assess anything – yet! So blind alleys abound, mistakes will be made, and all of this is being conducted in fierce competition with every other nation state out there that’s trying to get the same materials (be these enzymes or PPE or antibody tests or vaccines or whatever). In short, it’s a scrum, and there’s no referee to pull it apart and reset… But, dearest media pundits, take your cheap shots and in so doing, continue to dilute the message that should be relentlessly front and centre: “Coronavirus kills, so keep your distance”.

– J’accuse:

Since the start of this crisis the media have (almost without exception) peddled fake news. Quick to leap on any “person in power breaks lockdown”, or “person in power makes mistake” or “person in power isn’t being clear enough” story they can cobble together, every instance weakens the central message. Fanned by an only partly accurate sensational story many demanded that Dominic Cummings be sacked because his actions undermined the central message. This may well be true, although the Barnard Castle branch of spec savers has been doing a roaring trade these past few weeks. But can they not see that if this is the “spec” then they are the “moat” ?

Vast swathes of snowflakes (and others) consider the whole thing to be a bit of a laugh. I’m sorry but all the claims that the nation is united in its responsible adoption of 2m social distancing are just plain tosh. Go out into the streets and watch for yourself. Although of course, since this is non-essential, the guidance is actually to avoid just this and say indoors, or in your garden if you’re fortunate enough to have one. But compliance with social distancing is by no means universal – it’s being flouted all over the place by people who see themselves as low risk and are utterly selfish in their consideration of others.

So here’s a question for the Daily Briefing: “This one to the scientists: What percentage of compliance with social distancing was assumed when you did your original modelling, and how has this changed over time as you see how well the nation is applying the prescribed social distancing measures?”

(You might even get some media pack kudos for asking a half decent question).

The “it’s been three weeks” coverage into lockdown, where the fake news tried to paint the government in a bad light for daring to prolong the exclusion, only reinforced the idea that social distancing was a con trick, unnecessary and to be ignored. And the BBQs lit up across the land in response…

Is there a reason the UK curve has lasted rather longer than many other nations? Well no one knows – yet. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to observe that the duration of the peak seems shorter in countries that applied more serious lockdown measures. Did the UK do lockdown-lite because the politicos judged that a Spanish style implementation would result in riots on the street? There’s another good question Laura/Robert, and this one could get you the scalp of at least a Secretary of State if/when it all goes pear shaped.

Lately, and despite the massive caution expressed by Van Tam, Harries and the politicos at the lectern the “baby steps” of reducing the UK lockdown have been allowed to be presented as a much larger move. If (when?) there’s a second wave it should not be the government who are blamed for this (although it’s almost a dead cert they will be), it’s our dreadful, and utterly irresponsible, media. “Do you think your actions have weakened the government’s advice?” That was of course a question from #Cumgate, but it really should be turned around and fired back at every media hack who’s published anything that undermines the central message.

Views: 26