The Best Scientific Advice

The government never tires of telling us that it's acting on the best scientific advice, which is debatable given the initial, politically motivated, herd immunity strategy.

However, why is it then that they ignore the best economic advice and continue to plough ahead with that disastrous Brexit which only a handful of economic experts support? Deadlines, especially self-imposed deadlines, favour those who are a) well prepared for the consequences of not meeting the deadline and, b) competent. This government has shown itself, time after time, to be neither.

Boris' actions and words, like those of all unprincipled men, are to do and say what's in the best interests of Boris alone. In that manner he is highly predictable and can be relied upon to ignore reality if it doesn't suit the purpose of promoting Boris Enterprises Ltd. He takes advantage of the fact that people are apt to believe a lie if they want it to be true and it confirms their biases and worldview.

Neil Ferguson has resigned from SAGE because he ignored his own advice, and rightly so - he did the honourable thing after dishonourable conduct, although having had the virus, it's highly unlikely he could spread it. The tabloids have excoriated him, but strangely didn't have a go at Boris for shaking hands with C-19 patients, ignoring the scientific advice, and becoming a vector himself. The glaringly obvious difference between Ferguson and Johnson, however, is that Ferguson is competent and his competence wasn't called into question in the tabloid attacks.

The lifetime on the virus within humans is anywhere from 2 to 3 weeks. In a perfect world, if everyone, without exception, could stand still  for 3 or 4 weeks, the virus would logically burn itself out within that timescale. Every slightest bit of societal movement within that 3 to 4 week period would extend it by an indeterminable, but finite amount, as it would initiate some spread of the virus. In some instances movement and societal interaction can't be avoided - in order to care for infected people, for example, which itself spreads the virus. Given enough warning though, even supermarkets and food delivery could close, provided steps were taken to prevent panic buying of a month's worth of supplies.

Here's a novel idea - a one week pandemic exercise every year, where everything closes and a law is passed that makes it mandatory for everyone to have 4 weeks supply of food in stock at any time. If the exercise were to be held at the start of the flu season (coincidentally at the end of the tourism season), moving it from an exercise to the real deal in the event of an epidemic would be relatively simple. Those who live week to week could be given financial help to pay for the additional food. Wages would be 100% for that week with companies saving enough to cater for that. Even the contact tracing app could be drilled with a dummy, electronic virus seeded randomly to monitor its effectiveness.

Yes, by all means open parts of the economy that inherently do not contribute to the spread of the virus (e.g. jobs that can be accomplished by working from home), but certainly not the parts that can only operate by humans being in close proximity to one another.

While we are likely to have a vaccine against C-19 soon and its danger will reduce commensurately, that may not be the case in any new pathogen and we must prepare ourselves for that eventuality, which is becoming a certainty.

Went into Yate yesterday to get some shopping and turned back - it was as if the lockdown had ended. Lockdown fatigue has set in, and that's the danger with long lockdowns - the variables change dramatically. A total shutdown for 2 or 3 weeks is far less damaging to the economy and you can better guarantee the behaviour of people over a short timescale; over a longer timescale they become unpredictable.

Forecasts are subject to many variables and a pandemic forecast for the number of potential deaths is no exception - some are very high and some are low. However, pragmatism would favour using the worst case scenario. If the remedy is short lived, then the impact of an over-estimation is not much different to that of an under-estimation; however, procrastination or mistakes will make the result of the under-estimation catastrophic.

Just as an aside, many do criticise Ferguson's forecasts, but they make the mistake of criticising an initial, worst case forecast, based on no action, with the result of the action taken to mitigate that initial forecast.

There's no denying that the economic consequences of the C-19 lockdown can be as significant as the epidemiological consequences for those at the bottom of the pile. There's no denying Trump's switch of focus on to getting the economy up and running again, even thought deaths are still increasing, is focused solely on a desperate attempt at getting re-elected - that's merely a consequence of how unprincipled he is and has continually shown himself to be.

If the economic consequences of C-19 on society are bad, then surely is makes sense to ensure that, in-so-far as possible, the optimum outcome is achieved by focusing all resources, including economic ones, on eradicating the virus from society completely, in the swiftest time possible. To do otherwise risks wave after wave of lockdowns, wave after wave of bankruptcies and wave after wave of deaths.

The health of the economy itself is contingent on the virus being eliminated swiftly. The virus being eliminated is not as contingent on a healthy economy. However, if sufficient planning is done beforehand (such as the annual exercise I suggested above), the impact on the economy would be minimal as it would be expected and people would know how to behave - as they do with regular lifeboat drills and fire drills on ships. If something is expected, then companies would ensure there were sufficient cash reserves to weather the storm.

Am I being too naive?