Chris Whitty/Patrick Vallance

[BonnieDundee]

In the light of the inaccurate graphs used to justify putting England into lockdown last week, do you still trust these 2?

YANBU of course I trust them. It was justified and they are trying to do the best for.the country

YABU No. How can you trust professionals who manipulate statistics to suit their own agenda

Curiously, there isn’t much attention paid to disaster predictions regarding money, education and non-covid health, because those predictions haven’t had time to come true...

And yet we believe disaster predictions concerning covid?

When I was following the press conferences I don't remember them saying anything but predictions which frankly we could all make

😂🤣

Even with all the measures France has taken, the BBC are reporting 800+ deaths per day there now. I don't think it's out of the realms of possibility of ours reaching 4,000 if the ambulance service was overrun and there was a lack of hospital beds in some areas. 4,000 would only be if we failed to act - the UK did act, so it won't happen.

Good grief, people still saying that because predictions based on people not doing anything haven't come true anywhere that the perditions were wrong

I think that what people are saying is that if you predict that X wil happn if you don't do Y and then you do Y no one can ever know if your prediction woud have come true

That's basic common sense, saying that it's impossible to know if something would have happened is quite clearly not the same thing as saying the predictions were wrong.

So far I haven't seen something that they did get right

For me it is not a matter of trust. I am concerned about the level of influence they have the the degree to which their pronouncements hold sway and are taken as gospel. No scientist or medical officer can claim to know "the truth" or reliably predict anything about a virus that is still largely unknown. There are other perspectives and views - many of them - that are equally well grounded in science, but which come to different conclusions. Instead of having an informed discussion on the science, those who disagree with them are ridiculed and bullied. Of course, that is not an uncommon reaction of "men of science" when someone disagrees with the accepted credo. Just look what happened to Galileo. Fortunately, the future of of the economy, the mental and physical health of millions, and a slide poverty and deprivation for even more millions didn't depend on whether the sun went around the earth or vice versa.

I don't trust anyone until they have proven worthy of trust, but I know how to evaluate a critical debate. I don't need to trust scientists. But I do need them to come up with a better argument than "we are right / this is the only way" and so far, neither of them have done so.

@satnighttakeaway

Good grief, people still saying that because predictions based on people not doing anything haven't come true anywhere that the perditions were wrong

I think that what people are saying is that if you predict that X wil happn if you don't do Y and then you do Y no one can ever know if your prediction woud have come true

That's basic common sense, saying that it's impossible to know if something would have happened is quite clearly not the same thing as saying the predictions were wrong.

So far I haven't seen something that they did get right

Not strictly true, although the maths is quite complicated /slippery , but it is possible to estimate what would have happened. It's quite common in medical sciences

I think we're talking at cross purposes @midgebabe

I'm not disputing anything you say but it's not my point here.

A poster above said Whittey and Valance were right more than the government. All I'm after is an instance it which they said Z will happen and it did. A provable prediction without any qualification about changes in behaviour or policy

Regardless of the sophistication of mathematical medical modelling we don't know who was right about the result of doing nothing.

They truly believe in what they say, I think.

I'd describe them as 'swivel-eyed loons',-that is they have blind faith in their original assertions and double-down when challenged.

I don't trust them. They've proven themselves not to be trusted. They actively admit in their released paperwork from the first lockdown they exaggerated the threat to ensure compliance.

I trust them.

@HesterShaw1

I think their view is one eyed. Covid beyond all considerations. Nothing matters to them except that, including the economy, society, the future, care for the elderly, safeguarding of the vulnerable and children and babies, education, and people's mental wellbeing. They will also now be concerned about their academic reputations and careers.

No I don't trust them.

This sums up my thinking exactly.

More than anyone in the government obviously

The only skin they have in the game is to preserve life - I tend to think that's a good thing

It's a POLITICAL decision to have FUCKED the NHS and not funded it properly

It's a POLITICAL decision that will end in deaths due to cancer/conditions/economic reasons

I know Chris quite well. He’s a good man and would try to do the right thing. He’s very competent but struggles between accuracy and political messaging. He believes better to try and influence and educate than walk away but isn’t always very comfortable in his role.
Stephen Powis likewise has to walk a fine line between best medical practice and political messaging. It’s not easy, I imagine. It’s really not their fault the government lie so frequently.
Ruth May did decide she couldn’t align herself with some of the messages and has been sidelined, so I guess they ask themselves whether its better to limit damage by trying to have an impact or to walk away too.
If not them, then it will be Karl Sikora or someone else wiling to take their moment of fame and throw integrity out of the window.

To be fair to them, health is their overriding concern. Health is literally their job. And they do mention that they understand the Gov cannot consider health alone but have to look at economics and the harm of lockdown too.
Like the chief economic adviser would give advice on economics and health would be less of a concern.

i trust them

those of you who dont trust them, do you trust the WHO?

I trust them. That BMJ interview is interesting - it's good to read that CW is still doing clinical work (during his holidays, does the man never rest?!) because he can actually witness what medical staff are experiencing.

Yabu

[quote Mammamia2020]@HesterShaw1
You're wrong. Please read this interview with Chris Whtty, it's really clear he thinks about much not than 'just covid'. And I say this as someone who's not been a huge fan of his throughout the pandemic.
It's a sign of the times that I highly doubt you'll read it or allow it to shift your views one inch.
www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4235?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=hootsuite&utm_content=sme&utm_campaign=usage&s=08[/quote]
Thanks for that link. Really interesting and reassuring.

So far I haven't seen something that they did get right

They said if we went into lockdown the rates of infection would decrease... and they did 😱

@CherryPavlova

He’s a good man and would try to do the right thing. He’s very competent but struggles between accuracy and political messaging. He believes better to try and influence and educate than walk away but isn’t always very comfortable in his role.

I've always got that vibe from watching him to be honest.

I don't totally trust them but I trust them more than the government.

At the end of the day we have a populist government so I wouldn't be surprised if Johnson has ordered lockdown because other countries are doing it. I suspect that Johnson is very hurt by the "biggest death toll in Europe" label and will be motivated not to have that title attributed to him for this wave.

In an ideal world, Johnson or Hancock would have a science background but neither do so I can see why they would rely more on SAGE than say Thatcher who studied Chemistry at university.

I think that the criticism that SAGE doesn't take economic factors into consideration unfair. They are scientists so it's fine to purely focus on that and leave economic factors for the Treasury to analyse. Sunak is more than capable of fighting for the economy and if newspaper leaks are to be believed he is not pro-lockdown as Hancock and Johnson.

Don't forget that Johnson will be gone next year and will be earning big bucks regardless of the economy. If Trump accepts defeat by then they could form a double act doing the after dinner speech circuit or something. I bet Have I Got New For You would welcome him back in a heartbeat.

My feeling is that Whitty and Valance have become increasingly political over time. For example the slides shown at the briefings have clearly been selected for making a point. For example the famous projected daily death modelling slide 🤔 This is why my trust in them is diminishing.

Overall though I'd love an explanation as to why the UK government is so shit at IT projects and why fixing TTI is not a consideration when WHO have said that robust TTI is how you avoid lockdowns. SERCO have had £12 BILLION and it's not acceptable that their final service is so shit when it's our ticket out of lockdowns.

So far I haven't seen something that they did get right

They've always said that they are advisors and don't make policy decisions.

If they had proper influence we would have had a 2 week half term and a circuit breaker in September.

I think that we can't possibly see the numerical predictions made as there isn't the testing capacity. Say roughly 10% of tests are positive. That means you'd have to test 500k people to get 50k positives. That's not going to happen as there isn't the capacity to test that many. When infections tail off people will assume that the scientists have got it wrong rather than infections not being able to go above a certain figure because of testing capacity

Come on now! What is this that the graphs were not up to date? And what else? Were they in the wrong colours too?
They do need to grasp a control on the information. So they do not leak shit to the papers and then spend Sunday gathering a few slides, and some random graphs they had stored in their laptop from the last meeting or whatever.
Also by the way, this kind of graph will change several times per day in a pandemic, as data arrives and staff adjust said data, and correct mistakes and so on.
In conclusion, yes I trust that they have a grasp of the general numbers, whether is 4000 or 3500 (as an example) is less relevant.
But I do not trust them at all to keep a control on all these leaks and bullshit that follows.