Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

How good are behavioural science models / approaches at predicting human behaviour at a societal level under unprecedented conditions?

Well the fact that a specific situation is unprecedented doesn't mean that we can't draw on some previous findings, because there are similarities to some aspects of other human experiences. For example (and bearing in mind this isn't an area of expertise for me) we know about adherence to medical regimes, we know about panic buying in times of shortage etc. Predicting things at a societal level actually evens out individual differences, which can be useful. Essentially the fact that there are unknowns doesn't meant that we know nothing.

There are uncertainties in epdimiology, particularly in relation to a new virus, but placing greater emphasis on the behavioural science than the epidemiology seems to have been fairly dumb in retrospect (some of us were even saying so at the time).

This seems like a strange distinction. Epidemiology relies on knowing about human behaviour. The whole exercise in manipulated R0 is done through the attempt to change people's behaviour.

An error which is even worse if the behavioural scientists weren't actually staying that, but it was just a sort of instinct that Chris Whitty had.

I haven't read the articles so I'd have to just refer to other's comments on whether the behavioural scientists are objecting the the use of a particular term (fair enough) or the general principle of adherence slipping over time (which seems obvious).

I think the big brain energy this subject evoked is coming from Karl Popper, falsification and definitions of ‘science’. Requirements that social sciences don’t meet. Yawn.

Yes. Thank you for unpacking that.

The same common sense Rees-Mogg was on about? The one that says ignore guidance if you think better?

More fucking meh from our inglorious bastard. He did manage to of course spew forth lots of vague waffle with little actual detail, but as usual there were many more negatives than positives.

Only good bit of today’s Bojo performance was that he seemed to indicate that if you cannot get childcare then you cannot be expected to return to work.

He also seemingly told the air industry to fuck off with requests for money at this stage as the priority is dealing with the virus. But did not address why the quarantine requirement for new arrivals comes so late (100,000 arrived by plane alone since lock down), but did not give any clarification as to if this 14 day quarantine requirement also applies to all UK ports, or how many people have arrived via those since lock down.

He totally avoided Daisy Cooper’s excellent question asking for govt to not just throw around numbers of what PPE is being provided, but to also supply regular updates as to the current demand for PPE. The first number is meaningless unless we know how that relates to the demand.

Despite claiming to have consulted extensively with first ministers in Wales, Scotland and NI he did not give any explanation about how none of them we told about new plans including ‘stay alert’ and instead had to find out from the morning papers.

Cloth mouth coverings for tube and enclosed environments like small shops advisory only, and nothing yet seemingly mandated or agreed on construction and other industries to ensure safety at work.

Claimed 200,000 tests a day by end of month, still woefully inadequate to identify actual level of local and national infection. 5 day turnaround of tests also clearly not good enough. Still nothing on testing availability for the general public yet.

For small and medium business no commitment for support other than loans.

Did not give any assurances that councils would get back the Covid expenditure they made as promised initially, some only got half of what they have spent.

Err what was the bit about Covid getting into the water supply in certain regions?

Also expect the Chancellor to shit on the low paid and vulnerable tomorrow with a reduction in the furlough amount, rumours its going from 80% to 60%.

Nothing on if we will be able to supplement that shortfall by taking on extra work, currently outlawed as a condition of furlough.

Not true, you can take on more work as long as your contract allows it. You just can't work for the company who furloughed you.

Ah OK thanks, edited.

That's definitely been my excuse for hanging around them so much.

"Well, you just can't trust the water, you know?!"

A counter view..

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ten-reasons-to-end-the-lockdown-now

Looks like the usual run of debunked bollocks arguments, particularly 'an evolutionary view suggests that the virus is likely to change quickly, with less virulent forms becoming dominant', which is pure piffle.

Maybe but the blanket lockdown seems a bit daft when the chances of death for the young and fit are so low, before we consider the impact to the economy.

Exponential growth of the virus spread without 'lockdown' would have overwhelmed our capacity to treat it and caused many (avoidable by 'locking down') deaths. This has been mentioned all along.

Thats what they said about sweden as well. We were suppose to have 18k death by now or similar and we should be lacking some 5000 icu beds..

Yet here we are. Those models have been terribly wrong all along the way even when they have corrected for new data etc. They are just plain bad, at least in terms of predicting the swedish outcome.

We don't know this yet. Your conclusion is essentially a neologism that proves itself.

We now have a much clearer understanding of who Covid 19 kills, and IMHO they are the people who should be protected.

Maybe but the blanket lockdown seems a bit daft when the chances of death for the young and fit are so low, before we consider the impact to the economy.

It's low because of the current lockdown.

Vulnerable people will die if the lockdown eased up, allowing it to spread.

The late Ferguson of Imperial College has a track record of pandemic erroneous predictions.. He would not have lasted long handicapping horses or pricing derivatives.

As I said before, we don't know that yet. To use a cliche, correlation is not causation.

It's low because of the current lockdown.

people will die if the lockdown eased up, allowing it to spread.

Let's not be pedantic about grammar. I understood what Ed stated.

Without a lockdown there would have been more spread and more people admitted to hospital. What happens when beds are full?

Sweden as a society has taken no measures in the last few months? Not any personal social distancing or anything?

Edit: response to previous comment

We can't be sure of this (see Sweden). Why are you convinced of this? We don't really know when Covid entered the UK or even how many people have contracted it.

ignore

Sure i dont think anyone is saying dont be cautious dont do social distancing.
Just there are other ways than a complete lockdown. We are for some reason not doing nearly as bad as we are suppose to if one looked at what the "experts" were saying.

We have an R value below 1 now for some time and stockholm is supposedly only a month away from herd immunity and this was achieved whilst still going on with lives in a relative normal fashion.

We have to be wary about comparing Sweden to the UK, particularly Stockholm and London. London is a major world centre and transport hub with a population bigger than Sweden (?).