...
Funny that their science was different to that of so many other countries.
a. the science isn't different - the maths might be;
bi. the maths might be because they are other countries;
bii. for example, they use Intensive Care capacity as a very key variable to inform their results - this is all going to be different everywhere.
c. I haven't seen any similar analysis to compare it to. If the WHO have a similar paper then I could look at the differences for example.
I don't think the science and maths was different, the reaction to it was different in some counties than others.
We do have an advantage vs some countries, as we have effectively conducted our actions earlier in our epidemic than others have in theirs.
d. It could be a disastrous miscalculation based on arrogantly thinking they know better than the conventional wisdom.
So it seems that there was actually an arm-wrestling match going on behind the scenes between differing scientific views, while they pretended they were basing their different-to-all-other-countries policies on 'science', and we followed the non-standard view until they realised that it was disastrous, at which point they belatedly came in line.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/10-days-that-changed-britains-coronavirus-approachAre the underlying facts in the story a surprise?
I think it's been repeated a few times that in the response to an epidemic 'what' you have to do is always known, the only question is 'when'.
Just recently in response to Kush saying we'll be able to see the efficay of the strategies followed after the event I highlighted that even with the data available this won't necessarily be the case as there are so many factors inolved, and even the same data and the same factors can be interpreted differently.
I've read some of the details of those disagreements, they primarily seem to be about starting assumptions. For example some strategies you might assume 75% will comply with, but other experts might only think 50% will comply - another disagreement was about what age you use as the cutoff for being vulnerable - they ended up going for 70 but some wanted younger. When you change the starting assumptions it makes the modelled progress of the epidemic different which can change drastically the most appropriate timing for your action.
It sounds like there was also disagreement with the final interpretation but the main gist is that if you got a whole bunch of infectious disease experts together and they all agreed on all these points it would be pretty bizarre; it's incredibly unlikely.
Fundamentally I don't see any difference to what they've reported going on here to what I would expect to be happening in other countries - the difference is that we've been told about it and have access to this information - I still haven't seen any government level data on what other countries are/were basing their strategies on for example - would absolutely love this to see where it diverged from the Imperial model.
The question of whether individual experts are controlling the policy too much is an interesting one. Science Wife strongly believes any government ministers for Science should have scientific expertise whereas I have always argued that the role of government ministers isn't to be an expert but to be a manager who organises the data and decides on the best course of action from this. This epidemic response is that but on a larger scale. On an abstract level I'd be wanting the expert advice to be given to the Prime Minister detailing the range of responses and the arguments for and against them with the Prime Minister making the final decision. But.... specifically, with
this Prime Minister I'd have my doubts.
Author