benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,390
Likes: 1,693
|
Post by benaj on Oct 15, 2020 16:55:15 GMT
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Oct 15, 2020 17:14:24 GMT
Civil servants (and I was one) are bound by the Civil Service Code and the Official Secrets Act. They have never been free to go running off the the press to spout off about X or Y. For a start, they may not comprehend the bigger picture, and secondly they owe their allegiance to their minister of the day, whichever complexion of government they represent. Their terms of employment demand they MUST remain apolitical and impartial. If they have a grievance, the proper channel to air it is up the chain of command, as far as their Permanent Secretary if necessary. This is right and proper and the reason our Civil Service was once the envy of the world. Politicians can be held to account at the ballot box, but it's imperative that civil servants remain impartial... and that includes highly charged articles to the media. If you can't accept that, leave the service. I completely agree with that, however not all public servants are civil servants. And even Civil Servants can be whistleblowers (not that I am suggesting that's the case here). I suspect that "scientists" (the ones we're talking about here) and "doctors" are public servants rather than Civil Servants. I'm happy to be corrected but I think the distinction is important?
|
|
bernythedolt
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 2,308
Member is Online
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 15, 2020 17:17:38 GMT
Wasn't it only about a week ago that the four leaders expressed the desirability of working together to standardise the regulations across the four nations, to make things easier for us all? That went well then... 😁
|
|
bernythedolt
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 2,308
Member is Online
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 15, 2020 17:40:07 GMT
Civil servants (and I was one) are bound by the Civil Service Code and the Official Secrets Act. They have never been free to go running off the the press to spout off about X or Y. For a start, they may not comprehend the bigger picture, and secondly they owe their allegiance to their minister of the day, whichever complexion of government they represent. Their terms of employment demand they MUST remain apolitical and impartial. If they have a grievance, the proper channel to air it is up the chain of command, as far as their Permanent Secretary if necessary. This is right and proper and the reason our Civil Service was once the envy of the world. Politicians can be held to account at the ballot box, but it's imperative that civil servants remain impartial... and that includes highly charged articles to the media. If you can't accept that, leave the service. I completely agree with that, however not all public servants are civil servants. And even Civil Servants can be whistleblowers (not that I am suggesting that's the case here). I suspect that "scientists" (the ones we're talking about here) and "doctors" are public servants rather than Civil Servants. I'm happy to be corrected but I think the distinction is important? Indeed the majority of public servants aren't civil servants and you make a valid point. I believe NHS doctors and scientists are bound by a very similar code though. When 'doctors and nurses' were seen to take part in a Labour general election stunt, there were threats of repercussions within the NHS because their terms of employment strictly bar political activities. It turned out they were actors after all, so it was just a shabby stunt rather than heads needing to roll. My daughter is a doctor & university researcher/lecturer, she is similarly restricted by her employer, so the body of public sector scientists actually free to express themselves is probably quite small. Edit: Dan's Lancet tweet concerned specifically U K gov't scientists, so I think they would be civil servants?
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Oct 15, 2020 18:56:46 GMT
bernythedolt thanks for that. I have no particular axe to grind re this, it's just not something I know very much about. It's an interesting issue though. On the one hand you have freedom of speech and the need to hear divergent / dissenting views, on the other consistency of message and clarity of communications is really, really important. I don't have an answer.
|
|
bernythedolt
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 2,308
Member is Online
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 15, 2020 20:07:42 GMT
bernythedolt thanks for that. I have no particular axe to grind re this, it's just not something I know very much about. It's an interesting issue though. On the one hand you have freedom of speech and the need to hear divergent / dissenting views, on the other consistency of message and clarity of communications is really, really important. I don't have an answer. Then a place at the Cabinet top table awaits you, sir.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Oct 16, 2020 0:14:54 GMT
Then a place at the Cabinet top table awaits you, sir. Not you too! the last time LinkedIn sent me a job ad, unsolicited, it was for Governor of the Bank of England. Which, believe it or not, is actually true. It still makes me chuckle. (I know, not in the cabinet, but it's the thought that counts)
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 16, 2020 7:58:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Oct 16, 2020 8:28:44 GMT
I'd urge you to read the following twitter thread... An easier to read version is available here... threadreaderapp.com/thread/1316511734115385344.htmlIt contains fundamental flaws and biases, for example: and it uses so-called convenience samples to estimate seroprevalence. Convenience samples are those gathered at the same time as the primary blood letting, e.g. those who donate blood. It doesn't take an epidemiologist to know that those willing to give blood during a pandemic are more likely to have been infected (it's also supported by the data). Edit: I'd also urge you to read this review of IFR... www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220321809
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Oct 16, 2020 9:10:16 GMT
Here's a useful rule of thumb - please correct me if I'm wrong! The doubling time is around 2 weeks given Rt is 1.2-1.5 (see here). If the govt implement a 2 week full lockdown then at the end of that lockdown we'll be back where we were 2 weeks before the start of the lockdown.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,390
Likes: 1,693
|
Post by benaj on Oct 16, 2020 10:25:55 GMT
Here's a useful rule of thumb - please correct me if I'm wrong! The doubling time is around 2 weeks given Rt is 1.2-1.5 (see here). If the govt implement a 2 week full lockdown then at the end of that lockdown we'll be back where we were 2 weeks before the start of the lockdown. In Hong Kong, it took 5 weeks to Drive the R from 4 to around 0.5. Although they have never banned indoor household mixing, never implemented the rule of six, they have police working very hard to avoid any "gatherings" in shopping malls, restricted number of people in restaurants and bars in doors, enforced mask orders outdoors, closed schools and provided remote learning. Oh, forgot to mention it happened before Autumn when the temperature was relatively higher than the UK. Heading into Winter, the UK will need more effective controls to keep the virus at bay. Have we seen any deep sanitisation in the hall of residence where the outbreak happen? Would the virus disappear magically even when students evacuate?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 16, 2020 10:40:03 GMT
Here's a useful rule of thumb - please correct me if I'm wrong! The doubling time is around 2 weeks given Rt is 1.2-1.5 (see here). If the govt implement a 2 week full lockdown then at the end of that lockdown we'll be back where we were 2 weeks before the start of the lockdown. I don't think it would be politically possible to have a 2 week lockdown - it wouldn't be lifted after 2 weeks.
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Oct 16, 2020 10:48:40 GMT
Here's a useful rule of thumb - please correct me if I'm wrong! The doubling time is around 2 weeks given Rt is 1.2-1.5 (see here). If the govt implement a 2 week full lockdown then at the end of that lockdown we'll be back where we were 2 weeks before the start of the lockdown. Not sure that's how it works. I think it depends on how long an infected person is contagious for, and how long the incubation period is. In theory, if you had 100% compliance with a full lockdown where nobody has any contacts with anybody else and the lockdown lasts long enough to make sure nobody is contagious, then you would completely eliminate the virus. In theory.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 16, 2020 10:49:09 GMT
I'd urge you to read the following twitter thread... An easier to read version is available here... threadreaderapp.com/thread/1316511734115385344.htmlIt contains fundamental flaws and biases, for example: and it uses so-called convenience samples to estimate seroprevalence. Convenience samples are those gathered at the same time as the primary blood letting, e.g. those who donate blood. It doesn't take an epidemiologist to know that those willing to give blood during a pandemic are more likely to have been infected (it's also supported by the data). Edit: I'd also urge you to read this review of IFR... www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220321809All good points - I am certainly not advocating Ioannidis as "right", only suggesting that there is a range of views, the evidence base is arguable and dynamic, and that as ever the tendency in this pandemic is to angrily vent against anyone who expresses a different view as to the nature of the virus and what to do about it all. The main thing for me is that there *isn't* an IFR, there is only an IFR by population and time. But people are now arguing as to whether it is (on average) 0.3 or 0.6% essentially. Look back several hundred pages of this thread and recall people were suggesting rates an order of magnitude higher, which I never thought was likely (albeit that my argument logically suggests that the IFR may well have been higher back then due to the ages/vulnerabilities affected, and time i.e. lack of knowledge and treatment).
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,390
Likes: 1,693
|
Post by benaj on Oct 16, 2020 10:51:46 GMT
Here's a useful rule of thumb - please correct me if I'm wrong! The doubling time is around 2 weeks given Rt is 1.2-1.5 (see here). If the govt implement a 2 week full lockdown then at the end of that lockdown we'll be back where we were 2 weeks before the start of the lockdown. Not sure that's how it works. I think it depends on how long an infected person is contagious for, and how long the incubation period is. In theory, if you had 100% compliance with a full lockdown where nobody has any contacts with anybody else and the lockdown lasts long enough to make sure nobody is contagious, then you would completely eliminate the virus. In theory.Agreed with the theory. What about billions of viral particles that we can't see hanging around in our society? They don't magically disappear in the Winter.
|
|