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

People are constantly making the mistake that you can't criticise the side that you predominantly agree with. During the pandemic this with bells on.

Yes, I trust them.

@Flyonawalk

Does anyone else find it inappropriate that Vallance owns £600,000 of shares in a firm likely to produce future vaccines? Isn’t this a clear conflict of interest which should be discussed more than it is?

It has been discussed to death.

He declared it right at the beginning.

He got them through his employment. He is not legally allowed to sell them at this point.

What exactly do you want him to do?

Basically nothing they have said has materialised

🙄because their models have been based on what will happen if we 'do nothing' & we HAVEN'T 'done nothing'.

@midgebabe

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

Yet all over the world, even in Brazil and Sweden, people massively changed their behaviours and governments everywhere took action

It's like saying if we don't hit the brakes we will crash into the wall
Everyone hits the brakes
We miss the wall
Some bright spark says look we didn't need to use the brakes at all, as we didn't crash

You'd think even the thickest almost us would be able to understand that, but clearly not

I trust the evidence of my own eyes

Covid ICU is currently up to April levels in my area

@Moondust001

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.

You know how to evaluate a critical debate?

Then I'd expect you to understand that they are the ones presenting. There's not just the two of them sat in a back office working on this.

@CherryPavlova

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.

I think he comes across as a good guy, that genuinely cares.

I think he's in a very unenviable/horrible position & is doing his very best to provide information & guidance to the Govt & the public

I think the biggest challenge would be having to stand next to Boris & listen to him mangle what you've just said, without rolling your eyes & and pointing out the very obvious stupidity of BJ. He's done a great job of restating his position & correcting BJ without making a fool of him. Skills..

I'm torn. I think they're probably get good at what they do, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. BUT, they're not politicians and haven't been voted in and therefore I don't think it's appropriate the amount of times they get wheeled out. Their use of scary graphs is v annoying. Yea, clever middle age women who frequent Mumsnet might know that that's not necessarily what they think will happen, and is just a possibility of what might happen, but a lot of people don't and they know that, and I think honestly that's why they do it. Which I don't think is right, really.

I also agree with pp who said they are focused on covid and not much else. I completely understand why, it's their job, but I'd appreciate a more rounded view, if I'm honest.

As for the WHO, well, they change their minds more than they change their pants so, no, absolutely don't trust them.

They've lost my vote. Deliberately using an old projection that showed the death rate increasing faster than the latest data showed then basing a second lockdown on it makes me suspicious. Even Teresa May called them out on it.

I don't know the backstory to graphs & telling off by stats authority.

I do fully believe that Witty/Valance/Van Dam are sincere, good and scarily competent men who are doing their best to provide good quality advice in a very uncertain situation.

I have no doubt they each have a long list of personal stories of people in their own social circle & family who have suffered because of Lockdown, too.

I trust them. They're there to put health first and advise on how to do that. The ultimate decisions are made by the politicians who are also listening to advice about the economy, etc. They make the final call, not Whitty and Valance.

I don't see what all the fuss is about the graph. There were four models plus the government one. I thought it demonstrated quite well that depending on what factors you consider changing, the death rate could be effected in different ways. It might've helped to add the actual death rate so people could see where they all sat in relation to our current position. Unfortunately, people aren't usually interested in detail and big picture context, though, they pick the snippet that works for them and run with their own slant on it. See also: £350m a week for the NHS and practically anything uttered by Donald Trump.

I have trust whitty, that maybe silly of me I don't know...

I do not trust, jenny harries or valance one bit.

@cherrypavlova
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

I'm really glad to hear he's a good man in real life. Always had a good feeling about him. Read the BMJ interview and I like that he makes it clear he's independent of politics. I'm glad he's at the helm; he knows what he's doing especially compared to your average MN contributor.

Chris Whitty has an online fan club now. Lots of admirers who’d never heard of him before covid. It must be mind blowing for him.

YANBU, I trust them but I do feel sorry for them. They're presenting different options and facts to the people who make the policy decisions, then are wheeled out to make those decisions look good, no matter whether their advice was taken or not. It would drive me bonkers!

YABU - they're either negligent or dishonest. To be honest I've been very disappointed.

My current theory is they've been told what line they have to take by the government, and to produce the "science" to support it. And they don't have the backbone to resist

YABU - personally, I don't trust anything they say.

'Ruth May did decide she couldn’t align herself with some of the messages and has been sidelined, '

Oh, isn't she 'chief nurse' anymore? Or do you actually mean she appeared once in a press conference and wasn't invited back? Maybe her public speaking skills aren't quite up to scratch, I must admit I wasn't impressed.

I trust Whitty and Vallance 100%. The current hospital admissions, ICU numbers and deaths back up everything they say.

My current theory is they've been told what line they have to take by the government, and to produce the "science" to support it

If that were true, surely the Government would be economy at all costs and the deaths of a majority old people awful but collateral damage? We are not hearing press leaks from their offices stating ‘we are doing as we are told and the science is being ignored’....

I trust them both. We have not been party to their discussions with Downing Street. They are not working alone - whole teams of academics are backing them up.

Thanks for the link @WhyNotMe40

It's an illuminating interview.

It's really unfortunate for Whitty that he is wheeled out by the government to be their scientific mouthpiece. People have completely lost faith in the government and, rightly or wrongly, they see them as acting on Whitty's advice. With these flip flopping changes in policy and more and more evidence emerging about the catastrophic effect that lockdowns are having on the very people they are supposed to be protecting - the elderly and vulnerable - what are people supposed to think?

So Whitty acknowledges that the health concerns are just one part of the picture, and that the economic and societal effects are just as important (you're right and I was wrong in my original post with regard to that). It must therefore be really frustrating for him to be brought before the cameras time and time again to present these awful health scenarios as a justification for government action, when economists and sociologists are not afforded the same publicity. He must know he is being set up in the public's mind as the enemy.

It could have been handled SO much better.

"The third reason I personally have problems with it is that, ethically, it would lead to a significant number of people dying who otherwise would not have died of this virus."

I also think the use of the phrase "this virus" is very telling and carefully chosen - it's an acknowledgement that while this particular virus might not ultimately kill large numbers of old people at the end of their lives, something else is very likely to in these 12 months.

And I of course exclude people not in this category from this statement - younger people with conditions which make them specifically vulnerable to Covid.

No, not any more. There is no doubt at all they use data to scaremonger, and it’s unacceptable. If you can’t build your case then you haven’t got a case, and they should be above political interference

At the beginning I thought they were good, now, I am not interested in what they have to say.

I don't see what all the fuss is about the graph

Because it was erroneous. It was plotted from 1 nov with a starting point of 1000 deaths a day on that date, he presented it on about that date and there was 182 deaths. It was factually incorrect. We were not on 1000 deaths a day, we were on 182.

And there were other more updated graphs he had with the starting point of where we actually were, and he declined to use them, preferring instead to use a totally inaccurate one that simply had not occured, to justify lock down and scare monger the public.

They also had to face questions by the select committee where they were directly asked if they had deliberately shown data they knew to be false to scare the public and they came up with a bullshit excuse of “it’s one of different scenarios and we didn’t intend that, sorry”

It was not one of varying scenarios. You cannot stand up and say there is 1000 deaths a day right now when there is less than 200.