Seanm
pfm Member
I can’t really comment on the quality of the modelling: I have to assume that it’s as good as one might reasonably expect, and a useful tool for policymakers in considering the possible consequences of their actions. I don’t believe those campaigning for ongoing restrictions criticised the modelling, although it was often dismissed or misrepresented.A lot depends on the quality of the statistical modelling. I have to admit to having expected universities to work together with the NHS data and modelling groups to develop better statistical models, whereby the likely distributions of certain characteristics can be determined (e.g. effectiveness of masks in a country, effectiveness of WFH, effectiveness of being able to take time of work when sick etc) but this has not been borne out.
I still feel that delaying the surge until spring next spring (maybe parts of Europe will achieve that), will have allowed more time for people to be vaccinated, possibly with improved vaccines and for further development of treatments, with improved and less intrusive NPIS in place, whilst not keeping the NHS at saturation. By saturation I mean that the NHS has capacity to reduce its waiting list in many other areas, which it has struggled to do due to Covid (staff off sick, staff treating Covid patients, staff leaving the profession due to the pressure, extra procedures to deal with Covid).
But I would not rule out that the modelling predictions may have been in the ball park and the decision ultimately for the government was to have the excess deaths now or later.
His delays in 2020 (at the start and from September onwards) did result in a lot of excess deaths (could be up to 50k). In 2021, I would agree that his decisions were not batshit or evil. However, I still feel that my comments above are valid in terms of delaying the surge.
My mistake re "infantile leftism" on PFM. I can list and have listed areas where I think iSage are at fault, but I still think that they have informed by bringing many areas to the attention of people that have been watching their presentations. The data analysis is good and supports the wider use of data in the pandemic. Their recommendations have generally been quite soft and not dealt clearly with some of the areas that I think are important. But I still think that they are an asset, so we will have to continue to disagree on that!
I’m not sure maintaining restrictions into spring 22 would ever have been a goer.