3 ms·

This is one of those “makes sense to me” kind of things, that the modelling shows is wrong. Not “kind of makes sense, but needs a set of specific assumptions,

This is one of those “makes sense to me” kind of things, that the modelling shows is wrong. Not “kind of makes sense, but needs a set of specific assumptions, so kind of true but risky.” Wrong. If you wait, you get a different infection rate curve. That’s it. Flat out, it means more people get infected more quickly and more people die. Long term, maybe the results are less clear, but given the best experts in the field are openly questioning the approach, you can be... pretty sure, your gut feel about it is wrong.

kitd 7y ago
Long term is what they're thinking of. Ie next winter and beyond. And there are plenty of experts among the uk Gov't advisers too. "Pandemic" is #1 on the UK's list of national threats, and has been for ages. I'm certain this will have been modelled to death all that time. Tbh, the "correct" advice depends mainly on your assumptions and priorities, not the mathematics.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  You may be certain this has been modelled, but that doesn't mean it's been modelled correctly. I'm having some difficulty believing that a government with a decade-long track record of stupidity, craven dishonesty, and aggressive contempt for the poor, weak, and old, has suddenly decided to be a world-leading paragon of evidence-based health policy - in a way that's making epidemiologists in other countries say "Huh? What?" And the question remains - if they're thinking next winter, what difference does two weeks make?
  - phkahler 7y ago
    Two weeks means a significant difference in the number of people infected this season, which means a lower exponent in the rate of spread next time.
phkahler 7y ago
>> but given the best experts in the field are openly questioning the approach, you can be... pretty sure, your gut feel about it is wrong. Aren't there some experts making the policy decisions in the UK or are they leaving it to the interns? There can be disagreements even among experts.

kitd 7y ago

Long term is what they're thinking of. Ie next winter and beyond. And there are plenty of experts among the uk Gov't advisers too. "Pandemic" is #1 on the UK's list of national threats, and has been for ages. I'm certain this will have been modelled to death all that time. Tbh, the "correct" advice depends mainly on your assumptions and priorities, not the mathematics.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
You may be certain this has been modelled, but that doesn't mean it's been modelled correctly. I'm having some difficulty believing that a government with a decade-long track record of stupidity, craven dishonesty, and aggressive contempt for the poor, weak, and old, has suddenly decided to be a world-leading paragon of evidence-based health policy - in a way that's making epidemiologists in other countries say "Huh? What?" And the question remains - if they're thinking next winter, what difference does two weeks make?
- phkahler 7y ago
  Two weeks means a significant difference in the number of people infected this season, which means a lower exponent in the rate of spread next time.

phkahler 7y ago

>> but given the best experts in the field are openly questioning the approach, you can be... pretty sure, your gut feel about it is wrong. Aren't there some experts making the policy decisions in the UK or are they leaving it to the interns? There can be disagreements even among experts.