From People And Nature the developing gulf between the Tory government ministers and the scientific community on the current global health pandemic.
By Gabriel Levy

With the coronavirus now spreading more rapidly in the UK, a huge gulf has opened up between epidemiologists and public health researchers on one side and the government on the other.

And in the absence of clear directions from government, others – from managers of universities and workplaces to families – are making their own decisions.

The fact that the former health secretary Jeremy Hunt has grabbed the headlines this morning, urging stronger measures, shows just how lost Boris Johnson’s government is.

But the most damaging criticism of the government I have seen is from medical and scientific experts polled by the Guardian yesterday for their reaction to Johnson’s announcement.

Their language was measured, even understated. They were extremely careful not to exaggerate.
An illustration by Alissa Eckert and Dan Higgins of the US Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention showing the structure of a coronavirus


(Senior climate scientists do the same: these highly privileged, clever people who have spent decades working their way to the top of their professions – and for whom dealing with politicians is part of the job – chose their words carefully.)

If we read their comments with all that in mind, they are devastating.

Professor Paul Hunter at the Norwich Medical School:

I was expecting there to be something a bit more rigorous. […] Just telling elderly people to not go on cruises isn’t enough to protect them. I would’ve hoped we’d be seeing more targeted advice for elderly and vulnerable citizens […]. I think they’ve been left out on a limb. [My emphasis, GL.]

Hunter’s most damning point was about the government’s lack of transparency:

I would like to see a bit more about why they’re not closing schools and banning large events. We do know, in general, that school holidays lead to a marked reduction of transmission in infections […]. I’m sure it’s based on good quality science. But we don’t know what that science is. The science isn’t being shared with us in a way that makes it easy for us to understand the logical basis for all of this.

And again, in case they didn’t hear the first time: 

I would hope that more of the information and science that the government is relying on to make these decisions would be made available so we could interrogate it and see if it’s valid. Unless that happens, there’s a risk of losing the trust of the scientific community and the public.

Dr Jennifer Rohn, cell biologist at University College London: 


I was surprised and disappointed to see nothing on testing. The people with suggestive symptoms should be tested during their self-isolation, so that we can maintain more reliable data […]. What is government doing on increasing our supply of testing kits and the workforce to go out and test people at their homes?

And:


Not banning major events now is the biggest disappointment and surprise for me. I think buy-in would be high anyway – many will already choose not to attend.

Professor Deenan Pillay, a professor of virology at University College, perhaps anxious to find something positive, complimented the government for not being as insanely racist as US president Donald Trump: 

I’m very pleased there isn’t the sort of reaction we’ve seen in the US to close borders. This infection is now circulating in the UK and it’s important that, wherever those infections come from, there’s an understanding that we’re responsible for dealing with all of them and avoid the xenophobia that has emerged and that would be perpetuated by an insular approach.


Not all scientists are reticent and cautious, of course. Professor John Ashton, former regional director of public health for north-west England – perhaps because of his personality, perhaps because he is retired – felt less need for restraint.

The government “are behaving like 19th-century colonialists playing a five-day game of cricket”, he told the Guardian in an interview. "This virus will find the weak points. You can’t just plan this from an office in Whitehall. It’s pathetic. The government doesn’t seem to understand classic public health”, he said. The idea that the NHS is in a position to cope with large numbers of extra patients is “a joke”.

Researchers’ opinions are not sacred. But they are people who know stuff – the “experts” (as in Michael Gove’s immortal phrase: “people in this country have had enough of experts”).

This morning the government’s chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance went on the radio to defend the strategy announced yesterday. He claimed the idea is to “reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely” – and, by allowing many people to contract a mild form of the disease, to “build up some kind of herd immunity”.

My reaction to that is: I am not a public health researcher and I don’t know. But how do you answer Paul Hunter’s point that you are not sharing the science so those who do know can not judge?

In any case, by mid-morning, the football authorities – hardly a gang of raging subversives – had ignored the government’s approach to large-scale public gatherings, and cancelled all matches until at least 3 April. They join the governments of Ireland and most other European countries in outflanking Johnson and co.

Some friends I saw today reminded me of the government’s underlying commitment to protect business, rather than people, and argued that that explains the approach to coronavirus. I take their point. Coronavirus will hit working people and less privileged people hardest and these are people that Tories don’t give a damn about. But that doesn’t fully explain the incoherence and illogicality of the government’s policy. Capitalism’s need for public health standards was well established in this country from the mid 19th century.

In my view, while this is not only about politicians’ incompetence, it is about their reluctance to listen to experts (grounded in the scorched-earth ideology exemplified by Dominic Cummings), about their fear of transparency, and – since this is a very public emergency in which the whole population is affected, and is also an actor – their in-built hatred of allowing society itself to take any initiative.

This was pinpointed by the former regional health director John Ashton, who, in the Guardian survey taken yesterday, said:

In three months we’ve gone from ‘we don’t need experts’ to ‘we are the experts, we will tell you what to do’, and neither position is right. You do need expertise but you also need to trust the population.


Ashton gave the outlines of a more coherent approach:

They are issuing some semi-directive things but they are not really doing what we need to do, which is to mobilise and encourage communities, neighbourhoods, families to form their own plans for the next period in which the local situation will influence what happens – whether it’s not going out to eat, or stopping sporting events.
It will be determined by the data, which they should be sharing promptly and fully with everybody so that people can decide for their town, village, neighbourhood what they need to do. If everybody reduced the amount of mixing time that they’ve got, that would help to slow things down.

That’s among the soundest advice I have seen, in this confusing and scary situation, and I intend to take it into account, and encourage friends and comrades to do so too.

Stay safe and look after each other.

⏭ Keep up with People And Nature.

Coronavirus ➤ Scientists Versus The Government

From People And Nature the developing gulf between the Tory government ministers and the scientific community on the current global health pandemic.
By Gabriel Levy

With the coronavirus now spreading more rapidly in the UK, a huge gulf has opened up between epidemiologists and public health researchers on one side and the government on the other.

And in the absence of clear directions from government, others – from managers of universities and workplaces to families – are making their own decisions.

The fact that the former health secretary Jeremy Hunt has grabbed the headlines this morning, urging stronger measures, shows just how lost Boris Johnson’s government is.

But the most damaging criticism of the government I have seen is from medical and scientific experts polled by the Guardian yesterday for their reaction to Johnson’s announcement.

Their language was measured, even understated. They were extremely careful not to exaggerate.
An illustration by Alissa Eckert and Dan Higgins of the US Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention showing the structure of a coronavirus


(Senior climate scientists do the same: these highly privileged, clever people who have spent decades working their way to the top of their professions – and for whom dealing with politicians is part of the job – chose their words carefully.)

If we read their comments with all that in mind, they are devastating.

Professor Paul Hunter at the Norwich Medical School:

I was expecting there to be something a bit more rigorous. […] Just telling elderly people to not go on cruises isn’t enough to protect them. I would’ve hoped we’d be seeing more targeted advice for elderly and vulnerable citizens […]. I think they’ve been left out on a limb. [My emphasis, GL.]

Hunter’s most damning point was about the government’s lack of transparency:

I would like to see a bit more about why they’re not closing schools and banning large events. We do know, in general, that school holidays lead to a marked reduction of transmission in infections […]. I’m sure it’s based on good quality science. But we don’t know what that science is. The science isn’t being shared with us in a way that makes it easy for us to understand the logical basis for all of this.

And again, in case they didn’t hear the first time: 

I would hope that more of the information and science that the government is relying on to make these decisions would be made available so we could interrogate it and see if it’s valid. Unless that happens, there’s a risk of losing the trust of the scientific community and the public.

Dr Jennifer Rohn, cell biologist at University College London: 


I was surprised and disappointed to see nothing on testing. The people with suggestive symptoms should be tested during their self-isolation, so that we can maintain more reliable data […]. What is government doing on increasing our supply of testing kits and the workforce to go out and test people at their homes?

And:


Not banning major events now is the biggest disappointment and surprise for me. I think buy-in would be high anyway – many will already choose not to attend.

Professor Deenan Pillay, a professor of virology at University College, perhaps anxious to find something positive, complimented the government for not being as insanely racist as US president Donald Trump: 

I’m very pleased there isn’t the sort of reaction we’ve seen in the US to close borders. This infection is now circulating in the UK and it’s important that, wherever those infections come from, there’s an understanding that we’re responsible for dealing with all of them and avoid the xenophobia that has emerged and that would be perpetuated by an insular approach.


Not all scientists are reticent and cautious, of course. Professor John Ashton, former regional director of public health for north-west England – perhaps because of his personality, perhaps because he is retired – felt less need for restraint.

The government “are behaving like 19th-century colonialists playing a five-day game of cricket”, he told the Guardian in an interview. "This virus will find the weak points. You can’t just plan this from an office in Whitehall. It’s pathetic. The government doesn’t seem to understand classic public health”, he said. The idea that the NHS is in a position to cope with large numbers of extra patients is “a joke”.

Researchers’ opinions are not sacred. But they are people who know stuff – the “experts” (as in Michael Gove’s immortal phrase: “people in this country have had enough of experts”).

This morning the government’s chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance went on the radio to defend the strategy announced yesterday. He claimed the idea is to “reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely” – and, by allowing many people to contract a mild form of the disease, to “build up some kind of herd immunity”.

My reaction to that is: I am not a public health researcher and I don’t know. But how do you answer Paul Hunter’s point that you are not sharing the science so those who do know can not judge?

In any case, by mid-morning, the football authorities – hardly a gang of raging subversives – had ignored the government’s approach to large-scale public gatherings, and cancelled all matches until at least 3 April. They join the governments of Ireland and most other European countries in outflanking Johnson and co.

Some friends I saw today reminded me of the government’s underlying commitment to protect business, rather than people, and argued that that explains the approach to coronavirus. I take their point. Coronavirus will hit working people and less privileged people hardest and these are people that Tories don’t give a damn about. But that doesn’t fully explain the incoherence and illogicality of the government’s policy. Capitalism’s need for public health standards was well established in this country from the mid 19th century.

In my view, while this is not only about politicians’ incompetence, it is about their reluctance to listen to experts (grounded in the scorched-earth ideology exemplified by Dominic Cummings), about their fear of transparency, and – since this is a very public emergency in which the whole population is affected, and is also an actor – their in-built hatred of allowing society itself to take any initiative.

This was pinpointed by the former regional health director John Ashton, who, in the Guardian survey taken yesterday, said:

In three months we’ve gone from ‘we don’t need experts’ to ‘we are the experts, we will tell you what to do’, and neither position is right. You do need expertise but you also need to trust the population.


Ashton gave the outlines of a more coherent approach:

They are issuing some semi-directive things but they are not really doing what we need to do, which is to mobilise and encourage communities, neighbourhoods, families to form their own plans for the next period in which the local situation will influence what happens – whether it’s not going out to eat, or stopping sporting events.
It will be determined by the data, which they should be sharing promptly and fully with everybody so that people can decide for their town, village, neighbourhood what they need to do. If everybody reduced the amount of mixing time that they’ve got, that would help to slow things down.

That’s among the soundest advice I have seen, in this confusing and scary situation, and I intend to take it into account, and encourage friends and comrades to do so too.

Stay safe and look after each other.

⏭ Keep up with People And Nature.

17 comments:

  1. Bat flu is like Greta and the climate changers fake news....I thought 9/11 &7/7 would have been hard to beat. I will take my hat off to the NWO, they've upped the ante to a new level....The truth is a mix of 5g and as James Corbert points out, we are heading for some type of medical martial law

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frankie - we have a piece scheduled from you to run on this evening. Thanks as always.

      Delete
  2. The government has a hard sell with this self isolation stuff, if they are still going to pursue open borders as a policy. Once again we will be tasked with massive alterations of lifestyle to accommodate an economic agenda we never asked for. I for one won’t be isolating if I get it, they need to own this debacle fully, I can do my small part in spreading the joy just as it was spread to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt you are serious - don't believe you would for a second spread it to an unsuspecting and innocent person. Open borders on this issue is a disaster but there is a growing consensus around that.

      Delete
    2. lol asking for equal treatment after paying over 750k in income tax is hatred. Ok mate. Let’s see if your bravado lasts, you are stubborn though!

      Delete
    3. Your hatred of immigrants is a stand alone and long standing matter. Behaving equally would be just to do as others and forego the perverse pleasure you anticipate deriving from infecting others. Wanting to inflict others is a hatred. If it isn't I fail unable to find any other way of describing it.

      Delete
  3. AM, isolation guarantees it’s your loved ones that suffer if you have it. At least a normal routine minimises contact with them. And I’m deadly serious about spreading it maliciously if I get it. I’ll be a victim of the economic system , just like a migrant that we have unlimited sympathy for. I’m not stocking up on food either , I want to be fed by the state should I need it, just like a migrant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your loved ones suffer whether you self isolate or not - it is not going to go to sleep just when you return to the house. Your seeming hatred of migrants seems irrational.

      Delete
    2. Makes sense to me AM. Make the state bear the costs of their excesses, minimise contact with loved ones. Remain economically active. Perfectly rational to me. I use migrants as an example of what the state can do for those who demand its help. I just ask for equality of access. Not denying them anything, just asking for their level of service. Cause I don’t feel i get it, even with massive chunks taken out of my payslip every month.

      Delete
    3. So inflicting on the innocent a virus because you have a grievance with the state and an animosity towards immigrants is sense? We will wait and see how far the defiance extends.

      Delete
  4. Daithi, if the powers that be decide you have bat flu (or they think you have it)...they will isolate you whether you like it or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frankie, the amount of times of have forced myself into work rattling my tits off cause of opiate withdrawals leads me to believe I’ve got good training in this. They can try and isolate me, alls it means is they will be taking care of me not my family. This is my goal. It’s a win.

      Delete
  5. So millions are going to self isolate in their bedrooms and entertain themselves (thats what Bojo and his clowns have said to do)...Maybe the toilet paper isnt going to be used for what it is for but....fil the rest in yourselves...

    The scare mongering is laughable...All anyone needs to do is listen to what is being said and not what they think is being said...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Believe the science and public health advice as laid out in Gideon Levy's excellent article. Conspiracists and oher cranks must not be given any sort of free pass at this time of global peril. Yes, I am alarmed at any suggestion that Leeds United might be denied promotion and Liverpool the Premier League but there are things of even greater import than the benighted football club that I follow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s the only time I would shake your hand troll.

      Delete
  7. Barry,

    You should have provided the website here for that article.

    By the way, isn’t Gideon Levy the most hated man in Israel?

    And rhetorically speaking why is that?

    https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190525-israel-journalist-the-deal-of-the-century-is-the-joke-of-century/

    ReplyDelete