I presume because it would make everyone sit up and take serious note to this virus?
Let’s hope they exagerrated, because the alternative is worse (a much more aggressive mutation).
Btw, you seem happy to accuse other experts of making conclusions without enough evidence, when the main point from those other experts is that the UK government has done exactly that.
2 Likes
Ya what?! Ive not put any conclusions forward, only that the premise is without evidence or scientific proof. And no your paraphrasing is flawed, a double negative. But thanks at last for setting out what you meant.
Well earlier a poster, citing an “expert”, was taking issue with something that Johnson said that was based on clear information he’d been given by the experts even though he deliberately qualified it with the use of “may”.
That’s dishonest.
1 Like
Sorry that my paraphrasing is flawed.
I’ll try to make it simpler. There are experts who think there isn’t enough evidence or scientific proof (yet?) for the assumption of a massively increased infectiousness of the new strain and that there may be other explanations for an increase of infection rates in certain areas. You’ve claimed that is obviously just politics and intellectual dishonesty. I don’t claim to know who is right or wrong, I’m not an expert.
2 Likes
Put another way.
Why is there conjecture ? Its because the government is making very strong and alarming statements without releasing the information. The correct process should have been a statement were they say: we have seen an increase in prevalence of a particular variant. This is concerning and we are investigating this further, to see if it is a result of increased transmission.
This is very different to a process were you are stating potential 70% increased transmission, leading to half the world closing its boarders on you.
This is off the back of earlier in the year, a previous mutation being touted as the cause of increased infections (using seemingly same rationale). With the press running all the scare stories. Today the latest publications showing there was no increased transmission.
The comments appear at best ill judged, at worst done with intent.
6 Likes
And quite obviously the UK has data to interpret, the scientists do not yet. Its like a collateral attack. I really hope the UK has approached the matter sensibly and the conclusions are reasonable simply to see the climbdown on here. It actually is politics and intellectual dishonesty, at this stage. The conclusions reached on here, simply belie an underlying ill sentiment to the UK.
1 Like
I’ve heard enough. Cheers for the conversation, glad you got that off your chest, I just have an underlying ill sentiment to the UK.
1 Like
Deleted a couple of posts to keep conversation civil
2 Likes
3 Likes
Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University’s Nuffield Department of Primary Care, expressed scepticism over the 70 per cent figure. ‘I’ve been doing this job for 25 years and I can tell you can’t establish a quantifiable number in such a short time frame.’
He added ‘every expert is saying it’s too early to draw such an inference’.
Professor Heneghan said there was no doubt this time of the year, the ‘height of the viral season’, was a difficult time for the NHS. But he said failure to put out the basis of the figures was undermining public trust.
I would want to have very clear evidence rather than ‘we think it’s more transmissible’ so we can see if it is or not.
‘It has massive implications, it’s causing fear and panic, but we should not be in this situation when the Government is putting out data that is unquantifiable.’
He added: ‘They are fitting the data to the evidence. They see cases rising and they are looking for evidence to explain it.’
Professor Heneghan said that if it was true the new variant was more transmissible ‘we should be locking down the whole country’ as people leaving the capital to avoid restrictions would spread it.
6 Likes
That tweet is from nearly a month ago. There’s a possibility that new things may have been discovered since then.
2 Likes
Just trying to highlight. That it is not simply political bias.
Top scientists around the world are questions the statements made by this government (Top virologists in France, German, UK and the US)
This shows the problem.
For me therefore it is not intellectual dishonesty to doubt the government and their actions. Especially when their past actions warrant little faith.
2 Likes
If this is correct, the Government and the UK would lose all credibility. Obvious sarcastic remarks can do one. Its a huge risk. And Im sure the information was the new strain was up to 70% more transmissible.
Don’t we need to see evidence that claims are correct? Pretty sure that’s how it works? Otherwise I’m a huge pink elephant called Boris and I have 300 legs.
1 Like
Can we please be clear about this. I haven’t seen anyone say that the mutation is 70% more infectious. What I have seen are many leading experts who’ve actually been studying this over the last few weeks say that it could be up to 70% more infectious and that’s precisely how Johnson qualified it. One report even indicated that they’d observed double the rate of transmission in lab conditions. All of them have said it’s too early to draw any hard conclusions.
But I’ve seen several posters treat the quote about the 70% figure as if it was an absolute claim, which it patently wasn’t. I’ve also seen posters criticise the government for understating the seriousness of the virus previously who are now claiming, without evidence or irony, that the government is now overstating the potential seriousness of this mutation.
I’ve seen posters criticise the government, without evidence, for not sharing their concerns earlier and, without irony, criticise the government for ‘scaremongering’ now.
I’ve seen posters criticise the UK government for allegedly jumping to conclusions whilst simultaneously citing others who have not been scrutinising the evidence, jump to conclusions to pour scorn on the UK information.
This is clearly something significant and something about which the UK is especially qualified (apparently) to lead on. Countries didn’t close their borders when mutations were discovered in Spain, for example.
I agree let’s wait for more information but the default setting among many here lacks objectivity.
I’m curious as to who (and for what purpose) the professor of non evidence medicine is?
1 Like
This is really the first time a Government has said such an alarming thing about a mutation. The last time anything close occurred, a lot of mink around the world died. Without speculating on motivation, it put a decision front and center for other States - if the UK is basing a policy U-turn, the precautionary principle is going to trigger corresponding action outside the UK. The secondary reaction now is in part because outside observers are somewhat surprised at the dramatic statements made based on the data made available.
Probably would have been nice if China had done similar in December 2019.
The silver lining is that I don’t think the UK’s previous plans were remotely close to sound. The U-turn had to happen.
4 Likes
The default setting should always be scepticism awaiting evidence / data / proof. The fundamentals of science.
I’m not criticising any country for closing its borders to the UK. As I’ve said previously it’s precisely what a responsible government should do.
As is the UK raising awareness about what they’ve found and learned and what it may mean.
2 Likes