COVID19

[neeko]

...

There is no legal framework to say that you have to tell the truth, there is no way that T, T & I will work.

T, T & I is the same framework that is used at the beginning of every epidemic. It's used when sporadic cases of notifiable diseases surface i.e. this isn't a new system - people are used to administering this, it's just unusual for us to need it at this scale.

Things like cross referencing where people travelled compared with who they might remember meeting (and where they travelled) would rule out almost all of the malicious behaviour. As in what you say has to be in some way likely for that to work.

Sam Coates on Twitter (sky) does not suggest that these 25,000 contact tracers have been trained in a detailed forensic manner, unless you count reading a PDF for an hour as extensive training.

I have not seen anywhere that says a person named as being a contact has a right of arguing that they were not with the accuser, if the papers run with stories of false accusations from day one then I fear peiple acceptance of the instructions won’t be enough to bring down R sufficiently.

[Jon MW]

...

There is no legal framework to say that you have to tell the truth, there is no way that T, T & I will work.

T, T & I is the same framework that is used at the beginning of every epidemic. It's used when sporadic cases of notifiable diseases surface i.e. this isn't a new system - people are used to administering this, it's just unusual for us to need it at this scale.

Things like cross referencing where people travelled compared with who they might remember meeting (and where they travelled) would rule out almost all of the malicious behaviour. As in what you say has to be in some way likely for that to work.

Sam Coates on Twitter (sky) does not suggest that these 25,000 contact tracers have been trained in a detailed forensic manner, unless you count reading a PDF for an hour as extensive training.

I have not seen anywhere that says a person named as being a contact has a right of arguing that they were not with the accuser, if the papers run with stories of false accusations from day one then I fear peiple acceptance of the instructions won’t be enough to bring down R sufficiently.

It's true, most of the experience will be with the people administering it at the top end but I think when people aren't entirely truthful it will be because they aren't including a detail they should (because they've got someting to hide) rather than them being malicious.

And in normal circumstances contact tracing would establish that people crossed paths, it should mean that it would still have to be feasible to cross paths for any maliciousness to work. I have a low opinion of the general public but I'd still be surprised if there was any particular amount of this happening once it starts.

[Archer]

FT analysis of data from 19 countries finds Britain hit hardest, ahead of US, Italy, Spain and Belgium

The data  compiled from national statistical agencies for 19 countries for which sufficient information exists to make robust comparisons. Cue Jon.


https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-c259-4ca4-9a82-648ffde71bf0

[Jon MW]

FT analysis of data from 19 countries finds Britain hit hardest, ahead of US, Italy, Spain and Belgium

The data  compiled from national statistical agencies for 19 countries for which sufficient information exists to make robust comparisons. Cue Jon.


https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-c259-4ca4-9a82-648ffde71bf0

The standard comparison is to age adjust them.

But primarily - it's not a league table; it's banding.

i.e. I don't really think there's any particular difference between 500 deaths per million and 1000 deaths per million; that whole range can basically come down to luck.

In terms of comparable countries the real difference still seems primarily to be Germany as the big outlier.


South Africa's doing well isn't it?

[Jon MW]

More generally I'd go back to the idea that you can only judge what countries did at the time and whether it was reasonable.

In January a country might have stopped all flights from the affected area in China, or they could have had a testing and contact tracing team meet all those flights instead; or either of those decisions could have been applied to the whole of China.

That's 4 possible decisions on the back of a very simple starting point. All 4 of those decisions would be a reasonable response at the time but they could all result in different outcomes to a countries excess mortality at this point of time. If 4 countries made those 4 different decisions then they all "pass" the reasonableness test, they all did the 'right' thing - their actual mortality figures now are irrelevant.

[4KSuited]

There’s been a lot of posts here that actually belong on the politics thread.

Notwithstanding that, thank you Jon MW (& Science Wife) for providing objective, non-partisan and knowledgeable commentary. I know it’s too much to ask that some of the others follow your example; I thought you should know that there’s probably quite a few of us that appreciate your input.

Too many issues in this crisis are media-led, with subsequent commentary politically motivated. As I think you’ve already said, the time for detailed analysis and maybe leveling objective criticism, will be when we’ve got Covid under control (beaten when there’s a vaccine).

Don’t get me wrong, I think there’s a lot that with hindsight could have been done differently, but I totally reject any suggestions that a government of a different hue would be in any better shape than we are now. It’s one thing making the decisions, and another to be standing in the crowd and saying “No, you’re wrong, you dipshit”.

[DungBeetle]

There’s been a lot of posts here that actually belong on the politics thread.

Notwithstanding that, thank you Jon MW (& Science Wife) for providing objective, non-partisan and knowledgeable commentary. I know it’s too much to ask that some of the others follow your example; I thought you should know that there’s probably quite a few of us that appreciate your input.

Too many issues in this crisis are media-led, with subsequent commentary politically motivated. As I think you’ve already said, the time for detailed analysis and maybe leveling objective criticism, will be when we’ve got Covid under control (beaten when there’s a vaccine).

Don’t get me wrong, I think there’s a lot that with hindsight could have been done differently, but I totally reject any suggestions that a government of a different hue would be in any better shape than we are now. It’s one thing making the decisions, and another to be standing in the crowd and saying “No, you’re wrong, you dipshit”.

Quite - it's nonsensical that a poster who is highly anti Conservative and uses "dipshit" to describe his political opponents then claims he is impartial about COVID.

[kukushkin88]

There’s been a lot of posts here that actually belong on the politics thread.

Notwithstanding that, thank you Jon MW (& Science Wife) for providing objective, non-partisan and knowledgeable commentary. I know it’s too much to ask that some of the others follow your example; I thought you should know that there’s probably quite a few of us that appreciate your input.

Too many issues in this crisis are media-led, with subsequent commentary politically motivated. As I think you’ve already said, the time for detailed analysis and maybe leveling objective criticism, will be when we’ve got Covid under control (beaten when there’s a vaccine).

Don’t get me wrong, I think there’s a lot that with hindsight could have been done differently, but I totally reject any suggestions that a government of a different hue would be in any better shape than we are now. It’s one thing making the decisions, and another to be standing in the crowd and saying “No, you’re wrong, you dipshit”.

Quite - it's nonsensical that a poster who is highly anti Conservative and uses "dipshit" to describe his political opponents then claims he is impartial about COVID.

I seemed to do OK, calling most of what would happen throughout though. So I’m not too worried about how much my was objectivity was compromised. Calling the U.K a contender for worlds worst death rate, after 10 days of learning about epidemiology and applying some London specific knowledge, at a time when we had 35 deaths, was a decent shout.

https://www.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-c259-4ca4-9a82-648ffde71bf0

[ripple11]

Might have been a minor breach........time to move on thank goodness.

Durham Police;

On 27 March 2020, Dominic Cummings drove to Durham to self-isolate in a property owned by his father.

Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. (We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.)

On 12 April 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on 25 May 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.

Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.

Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.

In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.

By way of further context, Durham Constabulary has followed Government guidance on management of alleged breaches of the regulations with the emphasis on the NPCC and College of Policing 4Es: Engage, Explain and Encourage before Enforcement.

Finally, commentary in the media has suggested that Mr Cummings was in Durham on 19 April 2020. Mr Cummings denies this and Durham Constabulary have seen insufficient evidence to support this allegation. Therefore Durham Constabulary will take no further action in this matter and has informed Mr Cummings of this decision.

[Marty719]

I really enjoy your posts kukushkin88.  Think you and Doobs have provided really great posts, analysis, links throughout.  Keep up the good work.

[kukushkin88]

Might have been a minor breach........time to move on thank goodness.

Durham Police;

On 27 March 2020, Dominic Cummings drove to Durham to self-isolate in a property owned by his father.

Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. (We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.)

On 12 April 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on 25 May 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.

Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.

Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.

In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.

By way of further context, Durham Constabulary has followed Government guidance on management of alleged breaches of the regulations with the emphasis on the NPCC and College of Policing 4Es: Engage, Explain and Encourage before Enforcement.

Finally, commentary in the media has suggested that Mr Cummings was in Durham on 19 April 2020. Mr Cummings denies this and Durham Constabulary have seen insufficient evidence to support this allegation. Therefore Durham Constabulary will take no further action in this matter and has informed Mr Cummings of this decision.

Or maybe.........

A lawyer says:
(long thread warning. cliffs: the correct action from Durham Police (In the opinion of this lawyer) but no dispute that Durham Police consider that he breached the rules)

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1265987139327725573?s=21

[kukushkin88]

I really enjoy your posts kukushkin88.  Think you and Doobs have provided really great posts, analysis, links throughout.  Keep up the good work.

Thanks 🙏, I have enjoyed contributing to this thread. If I stop, it won’t be down to the complaining of people who hold different values to me.

[kukushkin88]

I really enjoy your posts kukushkin88.  Think you and Doobs have provided really great posts, analysis, links throughout.  Keep up the good work.

Thanks 🙏, I have enjoyed contributing to this thread. If I stop, it won’t be down to the complaining of people who hold different values to me.

On a slightly related note. If people want, I am happy to stop calling Boris . Maybe with a minor explanation for why I think it’s OK but am willing to bow to the views of others on it.

[RED-DOG]

I really enjoy your posts kukushkin88.  Think you and Doobs have provided really great posts, analysis, links throughout.  Keep up the good work.

Thanks 🙏, I have enjoyed contributing to this thread. If I stop, it won’t be down to the complaining of people who hold different values to me.

On a slightly related note. If people want, I am happy to stop calling Boris DJ. Maybe with a minor explanation for why I think it’s OK but am willing to bow to the views of others on it.

FYI If you click 'additional options' and then 'don't use smileys it won't read DS as Jack of  Diamonds.

[kukushkin88]

I really enjoy your posts kukushkin88.  Think you and Doobs have provided really great posts, analysis, links throughout.  Keep up the good work.

Thanks 🙏, I have enjoyed contributing to this thread. If I stop, it won’t be down to the complaining of people who hold different values to me.

On a slightly related note. If people want, I am happy to stop calling Boris . Maybe with a minor explanation for why I think it’s OK but am willing to bow to the views of others on it.

FYI If you click 'additional options' and then 'don't use smileys it won't read DS Jack of Diamomds.

I decided to go with ‘jack of diamonds’, as regs would know who I meant but there’d be a reduced likelihood of causing offence to (potentially sensitive) newcomers.