Quincy Abeyie wrote:
Can't say I've followed UK's approach to this virus that closely other than noticing they're taking much less drastical measures than many other countries. What is the reasoning behind this? Goon, you say you see the logic behind it, but I think I'd need an explanation to understand that.
It's just drastic, not drastical btw; the latter is not a word as far as I know. Not to be rude but I thought you might prefer I let you know.
The reasoning from the government is based on two different sciences: epidemiology and behavioural. Their analysis of the former predicts that the gathering of large crowds does not have a significant impact on increasing the spread of infection; the chief science officer stated that the R0 of 2-3 persons only applied to the level of interaction seen between an infected person and his family and friends and did not apply to the level of interaction found amongst persons in crowds--which is clearly utterly ridiculous for reasons so obvious they do not need stating. Next it was calculated at the time that the infection rate had reached epidemic levels in Hubei that unless they reduced air travel from China by 95% it would only have a neglible impact on the spread of infection in the UK, and they estimated they could at best stop 50% of air travel from China because of "how the world works now"; they also said that airport screening was ineffective because of asymptomatic transmission; and the decision not to stop travel and not to screen incoming passengers has supposedly proven to be correct given the way the virus has spread in countries that did take those early measures. Finally they stated that the epidemiological science suggests that closing schools would have little effect on the spread of the virus unless they were closed for the entirety of the epidemic, and because children don't tend to get sick they believe them to be less infectious; aslo because they don't get sick they're therefore not placing them at risk by keeping them in school.
From a behavioural science point of view, the PM stated that by going too early with the more drastic measures that the science suggests they were at risk of asking the populace to change their behaviours to an extent that would not be sustainable for a long enough period of time to get through the 10-14 weeks they estimate the epidemic will last. This is also grounded in the fact that they believe building up a herd immunity is the only way to stop an untenable cycle of complete lockdown and then re-emergence of the virus on resumption of normal practices--they say that eventually people will get fed up and stop listening. The chief science officer also seems to believe that it is impossible to keep kids from seeing their friends for 14 weeks and so shutting down schools is a waste of time with that in mind. Also that parents would not be able to cope with kids being home from school and would end up leaning on grandparents, exposing a vulnerable group to the virus unnecessarily.
Edit - another point worth mentioning is that the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, was very adamant that the fatality rate for this disease is 1%, not the 3-4% we're seeing elsewhere. I think it is this belief that is shaping the government's approach; Burnwinter linked to the article by Robert Peston in the Spectator this morning and it seems he knew what he was talking about: sacrificing 1% of the many, many thousands that catch the disease in order to build up herd immunity. That seems to be the idea behind their approach.
