'Following the science' rhetoric led to delay to UK COVID-19 lockdown and facemask rules
- Reference: 1608560105
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/12/21/thinktank_report/
- Source link:
The Institute for Government, a thinktank, said that during the early months of 2020, UK prime minister Boris Johnson's government relied too much on scientific advice – which was at best incomplete – to fill large gap in government strategy and decision-making that was not its role to fill.
"At times the prime minister and ministers waited until the scientific evidence was overwhelming rather than using it alongside other inputs to make their own judgements. This was captured in the government's rhetoric, which wrongly suggested that science could simply be 'followed' – and appears to have been a big factor behind the costly delay to the first lockdown. The reluctance to make judgements on a precautionary basis was also visible elsewhere, such as the delayed mandating of the use of face masks," according to the [1]report [PDF] "Science advice in a crisis".
The government ministers had initially put too much weight on the ad hoc Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, but also failed to communicate across government and with other scientific advisors, it said. "Decision making at the centre of government was too often chaotic and ministers failed to clearly communicate their priorities to science advisers.
"This was most acute in the initial months but a lack of clarity about objectives persisted through the release of the first lockdown to recent decisions over the second lockdown and regional tiers," the report said.
An example of lack of communication was the Treasury's introduction of the Eat Out to Help Out scheme which created a government-supported 1-for-2 promotion at dining outlets. The project was created "without consulting the government's leading epidemiologists" and, although it has now ended, it has been found to be associated with increases in transmission of coronavirus, the IoG said.
According to Oxford Uni's World in Data, the UK is [2]sixth in the world in terms of total [3]COVID-19 cases , but fourth in infection rates per million of population (behind the USA, France and Brazil). More worryingly, it is currently number two in " [4]new cases per million ".
"The government's communication of the risk around key activities has also often been confusing. Ministers have switched back and forth between alarm and reassurance, while failing to drive home key messages, such as the risk of gathering in indoor and poorly ventilated settings," the report said.
On the plus side, the UK's science advice structures are well regarded. It was one of the first countries in the world to appoint a chief scientific adviser and chief medical officer. In 2009, it created SAGE, with flexible membership, to provide a consensus view to policy-makers.
The UK has had a few disease outbreaks, albeit less serious than the novel coronavirus that wrought havoc on the world stage, to adapt how it works with scientific advice during fast-changing circumstances. These included [5]bovine spongiform encephalopathy (popularly known as "mad cow disease"), foot and mouth disease and "swine flu".
Control of these outbreaks did not all go well. During the 1990s mad cow disease outbreak, the government reassured the public UK beef was safe to eat, [6]with then agriculture minister John Gummer pictured eating a burger with his daughter. Only in 1996 did it reverse its position and acknowledge a link between BSE in cattle and a neurological disease affecting humans which has been cited in 178 deaths.
According to the IoG, some of the problems around policy and scientific advice have re-emerged. These included the "blurring of policy decisions and expert advice; the need for politicians to interrogate advice, and for advisers to understand the policies they are informing; the risks of relying on uncertain modelling and of 'groupthink'; and a lack of transparency in explaining how evidence and advice are used."
Among its recommendations are that the Cabinet Office should ensure the COVID-19 cabinet committees use a "clear decision framework that integrates scientific, economic and other advice." The government should ensure any new public health measures are announced and explained in Parliament. Meanwhile, the government should be clearer about the purpose of press briefings and allow scientist-led briefings more often, the report said. ®
Get our [7]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/science-advice-crisis_0.pdf
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus#coronavirus-country-profiles
[3] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
[4] https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus#coronavirus-country-profiles
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_BSE_outbreak
[6] http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16/newsid_2913000/2913807.stm
[7] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: The Institute for Government, a bunch of non-scientists
Weren't there scientists calling for the first lockdown to start weeks before politicians decided to put it in place?
Re: The Institute for Government, a bunch of non-scientists
@AC
"Weren't there scientists calling for the first lockdown to start weeks before politicians decided to put it in place?"
Probably. But then there were others calling for no lockdown. I recall hearing the arguments against lockdown being around human behaviour and not tolerating it for too long. Basically what has come to pass for being locked down to long.
Re: The Institute for Government, a bunch of non-scientists
The confusing messaging and a different set of rules for the chosen few had nothing to do with it, then?
Re: The Institute for Government, a bunch of non-scientists
Yes the WHO's head was publicly begging for early lockdown in combination with massive testing and isolating the positives. Stressing that you need them both too.
Re: The Institute for Government, a bunch of non-scientists
For the UK timelines:
- My wife and I (working for separate London-based companies) were told to work from home from the 9th of March and had had work meetings cancelled if they involved international travel from the middle of February. i.e. there was some awareness at this point.
- 12th March NHS advise COVID testing to be restricted due to capacity being exceeded.
- Matt Hancock claims his statement "to avoid social contact and stay home" was the start of lock down.on the 16th of March. This claim is difficult to support due to Cheltenham proceeding along with other sporting events.
- the WHO director general advised physical distancing along with "isolate, test, treat and trace" on the 18th of March. I believe this is the statement you are referring to.
- Boris Johnsons told people "they “must” stay at home and said that "we will immediately" close some businesses" is considered the "formal" start of lockdown 1 on the 23rd of March.
- the WHO formally advised lock downs on the 16th of April
Re: The Institute for Government, a bunch of non-scientists
I no longer have my copy, but earlier in the year than March New Scientist published an interview with the WHO head. He was stressing that Wuhan had succeeded in reducing infections by doing both.
As I say, that's off the top of my head because I can't look it up.
Re: The Institute for Government, a bunch of non-scientists
The Who, What, When is Here: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/interactive-timeline#event-20
Masks WERE/ARE science
Too true. Masks ARE established science, the doctor wears masks for a scientific reason, MASKS ARE NOT DECORATIVE, doctors don't wear them as a fashion statement FFS. The decision to not wear masks was LOGISTICAL. They thought if they encourage people to wear them, mask stocks will be depleted for the front line workers and nurses that really need them the most.
Science is not logistics! They can piss off with this claim.
The same decision was made in the US too, again for the same reason.
In Thailand they masked up as soon as the Chinese said they were having difficulty containing it, in January. Right now, another outbreak they've found in Burmese migrant workers camps at shrimp farms in Samut Sakhon. One province is locked down, they're testing 40,000 people in and around that province, and although Bangkok had few cases and is not locked down..... it's like it is. They've closed communal areas, masks are compulsory, the strict enforcement of mask wearing in public is back. Malls are back to strong enforcement of the mask rules.
No whiney Fox News liars here, people wear masks, it will be taken down to zero cases again. People don't die, because Murdochs media empire doesn't spew lies into their heads. Lies that kill them.
The problem with the decision to not make masks compulsory, is it let Murdochs media empire, especially Fox News, undermined mask wearing, citing the change in policy as if it was uncertainty.
Then they undermined the lockdown, so it opened two weeks too soon (remember "the cure is worse than the disease" resulting in Trump's "Liberate MICHIGAN/MINNESOTA/VIRGINIA..."),
Now they're trying to undermine the vaccine rollout. They think will score gains politically if they can undermine Biden's handling of the pandemic. Never mind the deaths, never mind the potential mutations that would undermine the vaccine, Declans boys spewing their lies to kill people for political gains.
At some point you have to count up all the deaths and see how many Murdoch's empire has caused and hold them accountable for those deaths. Not just fines, prison time. They killed your mum and your dad, so hold them accountable.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
So they were wrong to following the scienctific advice at the start (masks)
Then they were wrong for not following the science in the middle (eat out).
Looks like they can't win.
Re: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Please go back and re-read.
At the start: looking for scientific certainty (which doesn't exist) and not include others in policy process.
In the middle not asking for scientific advice at all.
Ie. the government looks for scientific advice when it wants someone to blame when having to make unpopular choices. But when they make popular choices they don't check if it is a good idea.
Re: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
To be honest, it's simpler even than that.
This sentence almost captures it
> At times the prime minister and ministers waited until the scientific evidence was overwhelming rather than using it alongside other inputs to make their own judgements.
Although they pointed the finger at scientific evidence, that's not actually the thing the government waited for.
LMFT
> At times the prime minister and ministers waited until circumstances overwhelmed them and took the decision out of their hands rather than using it alongside other inputs to make their own judgements.
In almost _every_ instance it's been the same modus operandi - complete failure to show leadership and make a decision. That dithering leads to things become an emergency, with only the one choice left.
We had it with starting the first lockdown, mandating masks, the dithering over the "circuit break" lockdown which meant we needed a longer one, using the tier system to avoid the inevitable next lockdown.
It's not reliance on scientific evidence that screwed the govt (well, all of us really), it's the fact that this government can't make a decision, and just waits until it's staring down the barrel of a gun and then says "we're going to have to take a bullet".
But then, people voted for someone because he promised he was going to deliver the patently undeliverable, so quelle fucking surprise
Re: [the government] waits until it's staring down the barrel of a gun and then...
Well, it worked for the Foundation [1].
=
[1] But then they did have the Second Foundation manoeuvring helpfully in the background. Probably a bit more handy than the Putinerati/ EU/ Pooh Bear/ Bugbear-of-choice we've currently got.
A think tank
Another name for a group of partisan experts whose sole job is to fabricate a viable-looking excuse for you own incompetence.
Re: A think tank
The expert part is optional.
Science?
Nobody 'follows the science.' You follow your values, possibly informed by the science. (Just possibly.)
With the Tory party's top down view of the economy it's nearly the most important thing to keep the businesses open. Hence Bozo's reluctance to lock down early, and lifting the last lockdown when the R number was barely below 1. Not to mention the sheer insanity of sponsoring spreader events. Oh and a curfew on pubs rather than continued closure, as if the virus only comes out at night.
Bozo has to have a really big number of expected deaths forced into his field of view before he will do anything to protect actual people. This despite having experienced the misery of it himself.
Re: Science?
Well, the "ready baked" Brexit will be "done" in a few weeks and he'll be able to move on to other pastures...
Re: Science?
@Greybearded old scrote
"With the Tory party's top down view of the economy it's nearly the most important thing to keep the businesses open."
Wouldnt that be bottom up. Top down would be dictating from above and imposing lockdown shutting down peoples lives and trying to control them.
"Bozo has to have a really big number of expected deaths forced into his field of view before he will do anything to protect actual people."
Without the big number of deaths he has cancelled xmas and made a mass of unemployed. Not sticking up for him (I am more supportive of the original approach) but the gov is doing the nanny state bit to the excess.
Re: Science?
Not so much. I'm talking about the money, which they think belongs at the top. Despite four decades of 'trickle down' claims having proven to be an exaggeration.
I think they should have handed all that invented cash directly to individuals. If everyone has dinner money then new businesses will arise to coax it away from them.
Many firms are going to fail, sad to say. Whole industries will no longer be viable at all. Let them fall, but catch the people. That is bottom up thinking.
Re: Science?
@Greybearded old scrote
"Not so much. I'm talking about the money, which they think belongs at the top. "
Ah ok. Fair enough. I think all politicians think that way, and see the gov as the top.
"Despite four decades of 'trickle down' claims having proven to be an exaggeration."
Trickle down has been very successful. I know thats not a popular opinion but has given us all great benefits from top to bottom.
"I think they should have handed all that invented cash directly to individuals. If everyone has dinner money then new businesses will arise to coax it away from them."
Unfortunately at the moment that wont help as its a production problem (covid keeping us indoors), but I was happy that Osborne increased the threshold for starting to pay income tax.
"Many firms are going to fail, sad to say. Whole industries will no longer be viable at all. Let them fall, but catch the people. That is bottom up thinking."
In this situation it doesnt work unfortunately. All this money is gonna be taxed back later and the sums are beyond what the rich can pay on their own. Middle earners are gonna be hit hard. But those at the bottom (people) seem to be flouting these harsh rules because it no longer suits them. Instead of trying to catch everyone with imposition it might be better to let people organise themselves more. Let them have personal responsibility and help those who need it.
Here we go
"Boris Johnson's government relied too much on scientific advice"
So those who bang their chops about how we must listen to experts need to jump in here and wail and cry against not following the experts. I look forward to seeing that....
"to fill large gap in government strategy and decision-making that was not its role to fill."
That would be where PHE screwed the pooch by caring about sugar and fat intake but not being ready or competent when its reason to be came about. Instead we had low testing capability because they kept it all in house. The answer of course being to allow private labs to also do testing, but then people gnash their teeth against the private sector health. Will this change the opinion of that group?
"At times the prime minister and ministers waited until the scientific evidence was overwhelming rather than using it alongside other inputs to make their own judgements"
So they should act half cocked instead of getting the facts to work with? And if they had that would be to blame for the situation.
"which wrongly suggested that science could simply be 'followed'"
Now aint that a smack in the face of those demanding expert advice only.
"and appears to have been a big factor behind the costly delay to the first lockdown"
By following the scientific and economic advice and using sound judgement to not put loads of people out of work and crash the economy because of a virus which is already a pandemic. Hell as soon as the figures came out for the economy people blamed the gov for the sharpest fall in Europe (which is because public sector output/wages was correctly calculated here). But all we need is a vaccine and we can open it all up again! Except now we have a vaccine and its too rushed, please dont make us go back to work.
"such as the delayed mandating of the use of face masks"
The calculated risk that the NHS was under-supplied and people would buy them up and not use them correctly anyway. Instead demanding they must have a CE mark or something thereby sending loads of them back to Turkey (if I remember right) while sending them PPE.
"According to Oxford Uni's World in Data, the UK is sixth in the world in terms of total COVID-19 cases"
Cases dont matter. Hospitalisation and death matter.
"More worryingly, it is currently number two in "new cases per million"."
Where originally the plan was herd immunity. Then that was considered stupid. Now a vaccine to help form herd immunity.
"The government's communication of the risk around key activities has also often been confusing"
Probably been listening to experts then. In the US their lead Covid bloke advised shutting down all sorts of gatherings but refused to speak against protests. So which experts should they listen to or do they follow their own judgement?
"On the plus side, the UK's science advice structures are well regarded"
At least there is something positive?
Re: Here we go
Wow, talk about cherry picking and twisting an article to fit an agenda!
Re: Here we go
@JDPower
"Wow, talk about cherry picking and twisting an article to fit an agenda!"
You seem to miss any form of rebuttal but we should just take your word on that? Or are you saying the many people who demand we listen to experts or blame the gov whatever they do, do that?
Re: Here we go
No point "rebutting" someone with such a clear bias as they would never listen to another viewpoint anyway.
Re: Here we go
codejunky> something thereby sending loads of them back to Turkey (if I remember right)
I bet that resonated with many in the UK?
Is Matt Hancock's local pub landlord in PHE? I can see how being a cabinet minister's local landlord could give one expertise in epidemiology, virology and medical testing.
If you vote for a clown
Expect a circus
The Institute for Government, a bunch of non-scientists
Fixed that for you...
...meanwhile "following the science" was just an excuse to blame others for their own shortcomings when they blatantly did anything but!