It’s important to bear in mind that the appropriate comparison is not lockdown-or-bust, but lockdown vs. some more moderate and contextually feasible social distancing measures in conjunction with protection of vulnerable groups.
The documentary where he told us this to us is below.
7 minute low-res version:
30 minute high res version:
Steenhuisen (leader of the Opposition): “The state of disaster we are currently under, governed by the Disaster Management Act, has zero provision for parliamentary oversight. Which means this secretive NCC answers to no-one. Not even a state of emergency, which is a further step up from a state of disaster, has such sweeping powers with no parliamentary oversight.”
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/05/16/dont-rely-on-contact-tracing-apps
The Economist argues that hopes should not be pinned in tracing apps which might not work. Medicine is littered with medical interventions that failed, sometimes harmfully. What is different?
One difference is that this is not a biomedical intervention. However, public health is also littered with ineffective or harmful interventions with dangerous consequences (perhaps the effects of lockdown on mass migration being a case in point). It is interesting that governments should consider giving this potential solution a free pass, so to speak, without testing or an evidence base – perhaps because it hs a technological flavor?
A very thorough and useful summary of a one-way flow of evidence: children are not super-spreaders, appear not only to suffer less severely but to be infected less commonly (or perhaps more transiently), and this all applies to children with co-morbidities too. The case for opening schools is overwhelming.
This follows a systematic review published in the Lancet in early April, concluding that “Policy makers need to be aware of the equivocal evidence when considering school closures for COVID-19, and that combinations of social distancing measures should be considered. Other less disruptive social distancing interventions in schools require further consideration if restrictive social distancing policies are implemented for long periods.”
A Framework for Decisions in a Post-COVID World – South Africa – Report 1.2
The document identifies six fundamental policy priorities which, together, constitute a framework for making all-things-considered policy decisions. These decisions must respond to immediate needs for action, but must also be taken with a view to the future (the post-COVID world). The policy decisions that frame them are not created by this pandemic: they existed before it, will persist beyond it, and constitute the reason that we care about COVID-19 and its consequences.
Available evidence suggests that South Africa’s lockdown lacks a strong evidence base, especially when compared to moderate scenarios rather than complete inaction. A one-page analysis (two-pages in the case of health) is provided for each of the following priorities.
A decision tool is offered for scoring these components to represent the impact of lockdown or other measure on that policy priority, and weighting them to represent the relative accordance afforded to e.g. health, the economy, and so on. This approach is customizable: items may be altered, added and subtracted from the list of policy priorities.
While the report writers offer their own recommendations based on the rationale encapsulated in their one-page summaries, in the end these are of secondary importance. This document is meant to support rather than prescribe to policy-makers, by enabling a decision process that makes implicit assumptions and value-judgements clear.
Our primary recommendation is that this framework be adopted, adapted and used by policy-makers for both making decisions and communicating the rationale for decisions, especially (i) decisions to allow and prohibit particular behaviours at different lockdown levels and (ii) decisions to move from one level to another.
Read the report | Access the decision tool
Note on versions: 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 etc denote minor corrections and updates, e.g. spelling, references, etc. Versions can be used interchangeably for all intents and purposes. Substantive new editions are marked by an increment from 1.1, 1.2 etc to 2.0, 2.1, etc.
The table below shows 250 days after first infection. Yes yes infection didn’t all start on 1 Jan but this model would only be ballpark correct if the infection started globally 6 weeks ago.
It’s easy to be wise in hindsight – except that quite a few people were saying this sort of thing, at every step of the way. I predict that in future this – the model, the politics, all of it – will become a classic study in how science policy should not be made. In the meantime, as we climb down from the heights of our panic, it’s just so fascinating to witness ideas that start off as dangerous – like “maybe we shouldn’t be locking down” – gradually become more common, and to feel the tug in oneself of trying to decide who to trust.
The usual disclaimer: I’m not saying the virus isn’t dangerous, that lives don’t matter, that we should do nothing… just that we haven’t reacted well.
http://nautil.us/issue/84/outbreak/whats-missing-in-pandemic-models
Jonathan Fuller writes: “In the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous models are being used to predict the future. But as helpful as they are, they cannot make sense of themselves. They rely on epidemiologists and other modelers to interpret them. Trouble is, making predictions in a pandemic is also a philosophical exercise. We need to think about hypothetical worlds, causation, evidence, and the relationship between models and reality.”
17:00 South Africa, Europe | 16:00 UK | 11:00 US East
https://zoom.us/j/93201666974?pwd=cWhoWkhhVjNSazBjRHpzaGlKN1pPdz09
Meeting ID: 932 0166 6974 | Password: 756567
From the organisers: “The threats of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and the effectiveness and harms of the social policies meant to mitigate these threats, rapidly became the most important scientific issues in many years. This session will analyse the pandemic and policy response from a variety of angles. Topics will include the nature and empirical basis for the relevant epidemiological models, the difficulties with exporting policies out of European contexts, and the challenges of democratic citizen science in a context of lay conspiratorial skepticism of science.”
Elizabeth Anderson, John Dewey, Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy and Women’s Studies
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Alexander Broadbent, Director of the Institute for the Future of Knowledge, University of Johannesburg
Eric Winsberg, Professor of Philosophy, University of South Florida
Jacob Stegenga, Reader in Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge
Please join us on Zoom:
https://zoom.us/j/93201666974?pwd=cWhoWkhhVjNSazBjRHpzaGlKN1pPdz09
Meeting ID: 932 0166 6974 | Password: 756567
CPEMPH 