4 ms·

> Who were the credible experts who recommended it? The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Membership listed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/

> Who were the credible experts who recommended it? The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Membership listed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation#membership https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vacc... > What support did they give that it wasn't a pretty big risk? Analysis available here: https://app.box.com/s/iddfb4ppwkmtjusir2tc/file/759357623956 https://app.box.com/s/iddfb4ppwkmtjusir2tc/file/759357623956 (via the minutes hyperlink on the JCVI page above) Relevant conclusion: "The Committee advises initially prioritising delivery of the first vaccine dose as this is highly likely to have a greater public health impact in the short term and reduce the number of preventable deaths from COVID-19." >The "herd immunity" strategy was also described as risky by most experts that I saw Herd immunity was not government policy: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54252272 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54252272

harry8 6y ago
>>Herd immunity was not government policy: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54252272 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54252272 >Others, however, have suggested, despite the denials, that "herd immunity" was indeed the strategy for a period of time. So I'm one of those. I'll accept that it wasn't announced as government policy by name, but what of that? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/uk-herd-immunity-coronavirus-who-margaret-harris-a4387346.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/uk-herd-immunity-coro... https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51892402 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51892402 Obviously denying the bet was made is the best course of political action to do otherwise would be a resignation letter. Accepting responsibility for the very large losses would take some kind of integrity, bravery and honnesty that is more than a little unusual accross the entire spectrum of professional politicians.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > Obviously denying the bet was made is the best course of political action ... Accepting responsibility for the very large losses would take some kind of integrity, bravery and honnesty that is more than a little unusual accross the entire spectrum of professional politicians. I think you're admitting here that you're determined from the start to assume the worst under all circumstances, success and failure, that you will never believe anything they say either way, and that no amount of reason will persuade you to give them an inch of credit or even just tolerance for them trying to do their best and it sometimes not being perfect. I hope you aren't subject to this kind of cynical, relentless, and impossible to satisfy abuse in your job as you're dishing out to them.
  - harry8 6y ago
    This is a nonsense response. You'd have to be craven to suggest that holding any politician from any party or ideology as being responsible for their actions and policies is "assume the worst under all circumstances." I see no possibility of meaningful exchange of ideas here. Best. The policies have had a massive cost countable in deaths and misery. Those who advanced those policies have to deny that consequence or resign. They deny like weak politicians. I don't believe them. I'm not alone among people who would much rather be noting their successes. If the long wait between really was a good bet with limited downside and not yet another big risk I would be so relieved. That wasn't the way it was reported at the time. If you take one thing to understand about this point of view I am expressing make it this: Being conservative about risk with decisions where countless lives are at stake is a good thing. Gambling and winning does not retropsectively make it a good decision.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > Being conservative about risk with decisions where countless lives are at stake is a good thing. It's not necessarily! Being too conservative can be as bad as being not conservative enough! If you wanted maximum caution you'd never take a decision and never do anything. If governments did nothing yet about COVID and were still carefully considering a course of action at this stage we'd be fucked. No thanks.
      - harry8 6y ago
        How conservative you need to be depends on the circumstances. Hurrah! Progress... "But I made it home without killing anyone." Is not a defence for downing 3 family sized vodkas and driving. "You'd condemn me weather i killed people or not!" Quite. Being too conservative we'd never have put the wheel on a vehicle. SFW. Sensible conservative approaches to public health policy with tens of thousands of lives at stake is a reasonable thing to insist on. Herd immunity policies were NOT that. The additional, un-tested time between jabs was widely reported as being risky. If it wasn't actually terribly risky, then the prior risk assessment was spectacularly badly communicated. "I made it home alive." Which this report, mercifully, confirms to my relief and joy, forms stuff all part of analysing the risk that was taken and the sense behind it. Noting also you can take every reasonable precaution and still get a bad result without that result being sufficient to condemn the decision making. So absolutely the result is not the most important thing when there's a risky decision made. But it's really, incredibly bloody hard to ignore when 3 family-sized vodkas in, having been told not to drive you do anyway, straight into some children. Or 110,000 covid deaths. Those kind of losses are rather hard to ignore when they're the consequence of risk-taking. Even if at first blush you didn't think it was pretty reckless even though it was described frequently as such, in advance.

harry8 6y ago

>>Herd immunity was not government policy: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54252272 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54252272 >Others, however, have suggested, despite the denials, that "herd immunity" was indeed the strategy for a period of time. So I'm one of those. I'll accept that it wasn't announced as government policy by name, but what of that? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/uk-herd-immunity-coronavirus-who-margaret-harris-a4387346.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/uk-herd-immunity-coro... https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51892402 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51892402 Obviously denying the bet was made is the best course of political action to do otherwise would be a resignation letter. Accepting responsibility for the very large losses would take some kind of integrity, bravery and honnesty that is more than a little unusual accross the entire spectrum of professional politicians.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> Obviously denying the bet was made is the best course of political action ... Accepting responsibility for the very large losses would take some kind of integrity, bravery and honnesty that is more than a little unusual accross the entire spectrum of professional politicians. I think you're admitting here that you're determined from the start to assume the worst under all circumstances, success and failure, that you will never believe anything they say either way, and that no amount of reason will persuade you to give them an inch of credit or even just tolerance for them trying to do their best and it sometimes not being perfect. I hope you aren't subject to this kind of cynical, relentless, and impossible to satisfy abuse in your job as you're dishing out to them.
- harry8 6y ago
  This is a nonsense response. You'd have to be craven to suggest that holding any politician from any party or ideology as being responsible for their actions and policies is "assume the worst under all circumstances." I see no possibility of meaningful exchange of ideas here. Best. The policies have had a massive cost countable in deaths and misery. Those who advanced those policies have to deny that consequence or resign. They deny like weak politicians. I don't believe them. I'm not alone among people who would much rather be noting their successes. If the long wait between really was a good bet with limited downside and not yet another big risk I would be so relieved. That wasn't the way it was reported at the time. If you take one thing to understand about this point of view I am expressing make it this: Being conservative about risk with decisions where countless lives are at stake is a good thing. Gambling and winning does not retropsectively make it a good decision.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > Being conservative about risk with decisions where countless lives are at stake is a good thing. It's not necessarily! Being too conservative can be as bad as being not conservative enough! If you wanted maximum caution you'd never take a decision and never do anything. If governments did nothing yet about COVID and were still carefully considering a course of action at this stage we'd be fucked. No thanks.
    - harry8 6y ago
      How conservative you need to be depends on the circumstances. Hurrah! Progress... "But I made it home without killing anyone." Is not a defence for downing 3 family sized vodkas and driving. "You'd condemn me weather i killed people or not!" Quite. Being too conservative we'd never have put the wheel on a vehicle. SFW. Sensible conservative approaches to public health policy with tens of thousands of lives at stake is a reasonable thing to insist on. Herd immunity policies were NOT that. The additional, un-tested time between jabs was widely reported as being risky. If it wasn't actually terribly risky, then the prior risk assessment was spectacularly badly communicated. "I made it home alive." Which this report, mercifully, confirms to my relief and joy, forms stuff all part of analysing the risk that was taken and the sense behind it. Noting also you can take every reasonable precaution and still get a bad result without that result being sufficient to condemn the decision making. So absolutely the result is not the most important thing when there's a risky decision made. But it's really, incredibly bloody hard to ignore when 3 family-sized vodkas in, having been told not to drive you do anyway, straight into some children. Or 110,000 covid deaths. Those kind of losses are rather hard to ignore when they're the consequence of risk-taking. Even if at first blush you didn't think it was pretty reckless even though it was described frequently as such, in advance.