I think we're already hearing the govt line - it was terrible but we've defeated it, hurrah, everyone back to normal. The daily briefings will be dropped shortly and the news cycle will move on, regardless of what the stats are actually showing.
It is actually possible to do track and trace without giving up any liberty. You can install an app on people's phones, which can let them know that they've been in contact with someone who has tested positive for covid, without either a) letting the government know, or b) letting them know *who* it was they've been in contact with. The mechanics are explained here https://ncase.me/contact-tracing/ That would work for everyone who uses a mobile phone, which is most people, and certainly enough to get R down a huge amount. Apple and Google have already built this functionality into their mobile operating systems, with the provision that one app per Government is allowed to use it. Several Governments of other countries are doing so. I would happily install such a system, and I gave up every Saturday for two years doing No2ID street stalls, and spent much of my thirties working in IT security. This meets every objection I have, and would work. The problem is, our current Government decided they didn't want to do that, and instead wanted to use a system which would a) tell the Government everywhere you went and everyone you were in contact with, and b) wouldn't actually work, because the phone operating systems don't allow apps to massively violate people's privacy. Which is why we don't have a working track and trace system when many other countries do -- not because it can't be done, but because our Government refuses to do it unless they can spy on people.
It is actually possible to do track and trace without giving up any liberty.
Not and enforce it. Even if I were to download the app' (I won't) would I really abandon all my plans for two weeks and sit at home doing nothing just because some anonymous message tells me somebody I spent some time within thirty feet of (possibly with a wall between us) has claimed (possibly truthfully, possibly not) to have a cough? Maybe, if I wasn't planning to do much in that time anyway. If I had a ticket to something I was really looking forward to, which at the moment is everything, including just going to the pub, then no.
But we can't do that either. If we knew that there was going to be a magic bullet in September, or summer 2021, or in time for next Christmas, maybe we could sit It out. But life is not like that. The middle class are revolting. And they are also saying that they want their holidays and their garden parties and their folk gigs back and for their businesses not to go bankrupt.
The bastards.
Look, we have to get back to normal, and as you point out, we can't rely on there being a vaccine or a cure, not within the next two years, possibly not ever. What else are we supposed to do? Permanently reconfiguring society out of fear is utterly unacceptable.
The correct strategy is the one the scientists were pushing back at the start, before populist pressure forced the lock-down (and that is what happened): we need to shield the elderly and infirm while allowing the disease to spread through the young and healthy at a rate which does not overwhelm the capacity of the health system until the population has built up sufficient resistance that we can go back to normal.
There is quite simply no other option. We can't wait for a vaccine that might not even be possible and we can't cower in fear of this disease for all time to come.
"we need to shield the elderly and infirm while allowing the disease to spread through the young and healthy at a rate which does not overwhelm the capacity of the health system until the population has built up sufficient resistance that we can go back to normal."
Give the general view is that this is the first pandemic rather than the last, would that be the approach for each subsequent one? Because I could then see how the "THEY are trying to depopulate the planet" conspiracy has taken hold.
I don't understand what you mean by 'this is the first pandemic rather than the last'. There have obviously been pandemics before: in the twentieth century there were at least the Spanish 'flu and the Hong Kong 'flu pandemics, and swine 'flu was technically a pandemic albeit a bit of a damp squib of one.
So this is obviously neither the first nor the last pandemic. Pandemics are just things that happen every so often — at the rate of a couple a century I guess? — and our response has to depend on the exact characteristics of each one; this is a disease which is terribly dangerous for the old and infirm, but mostly trivial for the young and healthy, so that should be the basis of our response.
Obviously this approach would be totally wrong for a disease with the risk profile of, say, Spanish 'flu, which primarily killed young healthy adults with strong immune systems and was much less dangerous for the old and the young.
Another factor of course is that if this were an influenza mutation then waiting for a vaccine to be produced would be a viable strategy because we know that influenza vaccines can be produced to schedule, whereas for this disease there definitely won't be a vaccine for at last a couple of years and in fact one might not even be possible, ever. So that also changes the correct response.
The only way to "allow the disease to spread ... at a rate which does not overwhelm the capacity of the health system" was, in fact, lockdown or something very like it. The reason why "populist pressure" was able to "force the lockdown" is that The People were right about this.
(The health system was only just not-overwhelmed even with the lockdown.)
The only way to "allow the disease to spread ... at a rate which does not overwhelm the capacity of the health system" was, in fact, lockdown or something very like it.
Yes, that was the case in March, but I'm talking about going forward. During the summer months it is important not to keep trying to suppress the spread of the virus entirely but in fact to spread it around the young, healthy population as much as possible (without overwhelming the health system, of course) in order to build up as much population resistance as posible before the winter (as it now seems clear there is a strong seasonal effect).
In terms of the government's fabled 'R number' it is important that the 'R number' in the young, healthy population is kept above 1 but not too much above 1. Below one and we're not building up resistance; too much above and we might again be looking at a Lombardy scenario.
(The health system was only just not-overwhelmed even with the lockdown.)
That's not even nearly true. No part of the UK came close to having the health system overwhelmed; the extra capacity which was built in the form of the Nightingale hospitals wasn't even used in most places and in London, the worst-hit area, it was barely used.
What is SK’s qualifications for telling us how to deal with a pandemic? I ask merely for information.
Ah, but would be asking at all if my conclusion was that we all had to stay in our houses, or if we have to leave wear full hazmat suits, for ever more? Or in that case you just just nod along and think how sensible and level-headed I sounded?
If I have got this right, there are three options:
1: Test people to find out if they've got It and ask people they've been in contact with to go into quarantine so they don't give It to anyone else, hereafter "track and trace".
2: Keep everyone indoors and off work whether they are sick or not, so they can neither catch It nor spread It, hereafter "lockdown"
3: Do nothing and hope It goes away, hereafter "herd immunity".
The fourth option, obviously, is a little from column A and a little from column B.
Voluntary test and trace won't work for the reasons set out in Private Eye. People won't trust phone calls and text messages from officials asking for personal details; they won't remember all the people they have been in contact with; they won't report honestly; and they won't voluntarily quarantine themselves if it is inconvenient. "Inconvenient" here covers everything from "I was really looking forward to going for a walk in the park" to "I have a zero-hours contract and if I don't show up for work I will be rendered homeless".
So we would have to have track and trace backed up with the force of law. It wouldn't be impossible to issue everyone with, say, an electronic arm-band that kept track of their contacts automatically, and to impose criminal penalties for people who weren't wearing them, ranging from "being politely asked to please put your armband on" for a first offence to "locking them up and throwing away the key" for hardcore refuseniks.
I am sure it would be possible for Jehovah's Witnesses to register as conscientious objectors if it turns out that armbands are forbidden in the book of Revelation; and I am sure they won't mind not being allowed into pubs and theatres without them. I don't think they go to pubs and theatres anyway.
Then you could issue contacts with legally enforceable quarantine notices, again, with penalties ranging from a short detention to six of the best for people who persistently disobey. There would be a system of appeals for genuine false positives. Some people would slip through the net but a very large majority would not and the magic R number would go down considerably.
There is absolutely no way that anyone in this country would ever put up with this: the newspapers think that even speed-cameras are an unacceptable attack on civil liberties. Some people (e.g Me) even objected to Tony Blair's scheme to make everyone carry identity cards because terrorism. Once you have given up some of your liberty you never get it back. Once we have accepted compulsory electronic tagging of everyone to stop It spreading, politicians would want to use the same armbands to keep track of pedophiles, terrorists, people who voted for Jeremy Corbyn, people who are worried about global warming, TV licence avoiders, and so on unto the crack of doom.
So: track and trace is a non-starter. Therefore, we need to remain in lockdown until It is over.
But we can't do that either. If we knew that there was going to be a magic bullet in September, or summer 2021, or in time for next Christmas, maybe we could sit It out. But life is not like that. The middle class are revolting. And they are also saying that they want their holidays and their garden parties and their folk gigs back and for their businesses not to go bankrupt.
I was all on board with Mr Johnson when he said that we could relax lockdown if the Threat Level went from Red to Orange; but it appears to have remained resolutely at Red and he has relaxed it anyway.
So: the only option which is politically possible is to admit that It has us licked and carry on regardless.
The idea of what is politically possible is not as cynical as it may sound. Politicians deal in what is politically possible by definition. I could wish that white, middle class, old ladies (a.k.a the Daily Mail) had less influence than they in fact do, but when you are already half way down the wrong road to Dublin it is a bit late to say that you don’t think we should have started from here.
However, it is also not politically possible for a prime minister to say “I have decided to let quite a lot of you die”. Except when he wants to start a pointless war in the Middle East, obviously, but that’s different because soldiers mostly come from poor families and are not the kind of people who come to our socially distanced garden parties.
I therefore predict that we are going to be hearing a lot more about It being a hoax; about It being much less dangerous than we all thought, like the millennium bug; after all crossing the road is a risk; who wants to live forever; most of the stuff from hospitals is fake news from leftie nurses anyway, and its perfectly safe to leave your bunker and resume normal activities, over the next few weeks.
"10 June"
12 Comments -
I think we're already hearing the govt line - it was terrible but we've defeated it, hurrah, everyone back to normal. The daily briefings will be dropped shortly and the news cycle will move on, regardless of what the stats are actually showing.
10 June 2020 at 03:46
It is actually possible to do track and trace without giving up any liberty. You can install an app on people's phones, which can let them know that they've been in contact with someone who has tested positive for covid, without either a) letting the government know, or b) letting them know *who* it was they've been in contact with. The mechanics are explained here https://ncase.me/contact-tracing/
That would work for everyone who uses a mobile phone, which is most people, and certainly enough to get R down a huge amount.
Apple and Google have already built this functionality into their mobile operating systems, with the provision that one app per Government is allowed to use it. Several Governments of other countries are doing so. I would happily install such a system, and I gave up every Saturday for two years doing No2ID street stalls, and spent much of my thirties working in IT security. This meets every objection I have, and would work.
The problem is, our current Government decided they didn't want to do that, and instead wanted to use a system which would a) tell the Government everywhere you went and everyone you were in contact with, and b) wouldn't actually work, because the phone operating systems don't allow apps to massively violate people's privacy. Which is why we don't have a working track and trace system when many other countries do -- not because it can't be done, but because our Government refuses to do it unless they can spy on people.
10 June 2020 at 05:22
It is actually possible to do track and trace without giving up any liberty.
Not and enforce it. Even if I were to download the app' (I won't) would I really abandon all my plans for two weeks and sit at home doing nothing just because some anonymous message tells me somebody I spent some time within thirty feet of (possibly with a wall between us) has claimed (possibly truthfully, possibly not) to have a cough? Maybe, if I wasn't planning to do much in that time anyway. If I had a ticket to something I was really looking forward to, which at the moment is everything, including just going to the pub, then no.
10 June 2020 at 07:34
But we can't do that either. If we knew that there was going to be a magic bullet in September, or summer 2021, or in time for next Christmas, maybe we could sit It out. But life is not like that. The middle class are revolting. And they are also saying that they want their holidays and their garden parties and their folk gigs back and for their businesses not to go bankrupt.
The bastards.
Look, we have to get back to normal, and as you point out, we can't rely on there being a vaccine or a cure, not within the next two years, possibly not ever. What else are we supposed to do? Permanently reconfiguring society out of fear is utterly unacceptable.
The correct strategy is the one the scientists were pushing back at the start, before populist pressure forced the lock-down (and that is what happened): we need to shield the elderly and infirm while allowing the disease to spread through the young and healthy at a rate which does not overwhelm the capacity of the health system until the population has built up sufficient resistance that we can go back to normal.
There is quite simply no other option. We can't wait for a vaccine that might not even be possible and we can't cower in fear of this disease for all time to come.
10 June 2020 at 07:40
"we need to shield the elderly and infirm while allowing the disease to spread through the young and healthy at a rate which does not overwhelm the capacity of the health system until the population has built up sufficient resistance that we can go back to normal."
Give the general view is that this is the first pandemic rather than the last, would that be the approach for each subsequent one? Because I could then see how the "THEY are trying to depopulate the planet" conspiracy has taken hold.
11 June 2020 at 18:19
I don't understand what you mean by 'this is the first pandemic rather than the last'. There have obviously been pandemics before: in the twentieth century there were at least the Spanish 'flu and the Hong Kong 'flu pandemics, and swine 'flu was technically a pandemic albeit a bit of a damp squib of one.
So this is obviously neither the first nor the last pandemic. Pandemics are just things that happen every so often — at the rate of a couple a century I guess? — and our response has to depend on the exact characteristics of each one; this is a disease which is terribly dangerous for the old and infirm, but mostly trivial for the young and healthy, so that should be the basis of our response.
Obviously this approach would be totally wrong for a disease with the risk profile of, say, Spanish 'flu, which primarily killed young healthy adults with strong immune systems and was much less dangerous for the old and the young.
Another factor of course is that if this were an influenza mutation then waiting for a vaccine to be produced would be a viable strategy because we know that influenza vaccines can be produced to schedule, whereas for this disease there definitely won't be a vaccine for at last a couple of years and in fact one might not even be possible, ever. So that also changes the correct response.
12 June 2020 at 03:58
The only way to "allow the disease to spread ... at a rate which does not overwhelm the capacity of the health system" was, in fact, lockdown or something very like it. The reason why "populist pressure" was able to "force the lockdown" is that The People were right about this.
(The health system was only just not-overwhelmed even with the lockdown.)
13 June 2020 at 02:52
The only way to "allow the disease to spread ... at a rate which does not overwhelm the capacity of the health system" was, in fact, lockdown or something very like it.
Yes, that was the case in March, but I'm talking about going forward. During the summer months it is important not to keep trying to suppress the spread of the virus entirely but in fact to spread it around the young, healthy population as much as possible (without overwhelming the health system, of course) in order to build up as much population resistance as posible before the winter (as it now seems clear there is a strong seasonal effect).
In terms of the government's fabled 'R number' it is important that the 'R number' in the young, healthy population is kept above 1 but not too much above 1. Below one and we're not building up resistance; too much above and we might again be looking at a Lombardy scenario.
(The health system was only just not-overwhelmed even with the lockdown.)
That's not even nearly true. No part of the UK came close to having the health system overwhelmed; the extra capacity which was built in the form of the Nightingale hospitals wasn't even used in most places and in London, the worst-hit area, it was barely used.
13 June 2020 at 05:47
What is SK’s qualifications for telling us how to deal with a pandemic? I ask merely for information.
14 June 2020 at 15:36
What is SK’s qualifications for telling us how to deal with a pandemic? I ask merely for information.
Ah, but would be asking at all if my conclusion was that we all had to stay in our houses, or if we have to leave wear full hazmat suits, for ever more? Or in that case you just just nod along and think how sensible and level-headed I sounded?
I ask merely for information.
15 June 2020 at 02:22
(Though of course at least hazmat suits would do something useful, as opposed to 'face coverings', which are pure theatre.)
15 June 2020 at 02:24
That was what I thought. Carry on.
16 June 2020 at 03:12