Coworker Mad At Me For Keeping A Selfie...
Business & Finance1 min ago
Article By Dr John Lee
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Captain23. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//it doesn't seem to me that a retired pathologist has any particular claim to be a "better" scientist than any other.//
Dr Lee has made no such claim, but that said, ‘Scientist’ is such an airy-fairy term often employed to cover a multitude of sins. Proficiency in one discipline doesn’t equate to proficiency in another.
Dr Lee has made no such claim, but that said, ‘Scientist’ is such an airy-fairy term often employed to cover a multitude of sins. Proficiency in one discipline doesn’t equate to proficiency in another.
As my posts on this subject over these past few weeks have shown, I’ve been against the lockdown from day one so, obviously, I agree with the article.
I went along with the lockdown, not out of choice, but my first concern has always been the economy, for the simple reason if the economy is fubarred then the costs will be far greater than the disease.
I accept it’s a mercenary point of view, and it goes without saying that all the deaths are tragic, and it also goes without saying that we have a duty to safeguard the old and the vulnerable, but for everybody else we must get back to business as usual.
For those that aren’t old and/or vulnerable but remain scared to leave their homes, well nobody is forcing them to, but their if they’re in employment their bosses might have something to say about it.
I went along with the lockdown, not out of choice, but my first concern has always been the economy, for the simple reason if the economy is fubarred then the costs will be far greater than the disease.
I accept it’s a mercenary point of view, and it goes without saying that all the deaths are tragic, and it also goes without saying that we have a duty to safeguard the old and the vulnerable, but for everybody else we must get back to business as usual.
For those that aren’t old and/or vulnerable but remain scared to leave their homes, well nobody is forcing them to, but their if they’re in employment their bosses might have something to say about it.
//This comes from someone with the relevant medical background, and as such it should carry rather more weight than New Judge's opinions (as well considered as these appear to be).//
My opinions are based on articles such as those written by Dr Lee, as I mentioned in this question:
https:/
Rather like the debate on Climate Change (which I only mention for comparison, not to argue about one way or the other) the lockdown issue seems to have been shut down: "the science is done"; "the arguments are indisputable". They're not. The lockdown was imposed largely on the recommendations of Prof Ferguson and his team who forecast that doing nothing would see 500,000 deaths. Since I looked into his track record, it seems the Prof has a tendency to go for the most apocalyptic scenario he can conjure up. He has been found to be spectacularly wrong on important issues in the past. Yet still, until he was caught "in flagrante" last week, he held the ear of government. Nobody seems to have questioned his team's techniques or results.
My opinion is based on the fact that I, like Dr Lee, believe the country is being badly misled. There seems to be an irrational atmosphere of fear which has been engendered by the government. The chances of becoming seriously ill as a result of the virus is actually quite small, unless you are among the recognised vulnerable groups. Like Dr Lee, I believe the virus will not be beaten. The vulnerable groups should be protected but the majority of people stand more chance of being killed in a road accident than falling victim to the virus. I believe it is foolish to trash the economy in a futile effort to prevent its spread. The country has been "locked down" for almost seven weeks. The average daily deaths number around 600; the average daily new cases average close on 5,000. Neither of these figures shows any signs of diminishing. The lockdown has trashed the economy but still the virus spreads. Politicians would do well to have a read of Dr Lee's article.
My opinions are based on articles such as those written by Dr Lee, as I mentioned in this question:
https:/
Rather like the debate on Climate Change (which I only mention for comparison, not to argue about one way or the other) the lockdown issue seems to have been shut down: "the science is done"; "the arguments are indisputable". They're not. The lockdown was imposed largely on the recommendations of Prof Ferguson and his team who forecast that doing nothing would see 500,000 deaths. Since I looked into his track record, it seems the Prof has a tendency to go for the most apocalyptic scenario he can conjure up. He has been found to be spectacularly wrong on important issues in the past. Yet still, until he was caught "in flagrante" last week, he held the ear of government. Nobody seems to have questioned his team's techniques or results.
My opinion is based on the fact that I, like Dr Lee, believe the country is being badly misled. There seems to be an irrational atmosphere of fear which has been engendered by the government. The chances of becoming seriously ill as a result of the virus is actually quite small, unless you are among the recognised vulnerable groups. Like Dr Lee, I believe the virus will not be beaten. The vulnerable groups should be protected but the majority of people stand more chance of being killed in a road accident than falling victim to the virus. I believe it is foolish to trash the economy in a futile effort to prevent its spread. The country has been "locked down" for almost seven weeks. The average daily deaths number around 600; the average daily new cases average close on 5,000. Neither of these figures shows any signs of diminishing. The lockdown has trashed the economy but still the virus spreads. Politicians would do well to have a read of Dr Lee's article.
oh dear
///We have been seeing the groupthink response to a perceived external threat that....//
no actually we havent - ho hum
group think is Bay of Pigs syndrome - no one says the emperor has no clothes
this has NOT occurred in lock down - Trump - first of all has been vocal aboutnot locking down
this means that the conditions for group think have NOT been fulfilled
(you can break group think with even a dissonant but irrelevant comment such as - oh god when ever we meet - the coffee tastes crap)
///We have been seeing the groupthink response to a perceived external threat that....//
no actually we havent - ho hum
group think is Bay of Pigs syndrome - no one says the emperor has no clothes
this has NOT occurred in lock down - Trump - first of all has been vocal aboutnot locking down
this means that the conditions for group think have NOT been fulfilled
(you can break group think with even a dissonant but irrelevant comment such as - oh god when ever we meet - the coffee tastes crap)
// Lockdown was enacted on a prediction of 500,000 deaths in the UK, rapidly reduced to 250,000 and then to 20,000//
oh no this is awful - there is a method of sligging off an opponent isnt there where you mis-state what he says or said
and then demolish it as nonsense
I recollect Whitty saying weeks ago - that we would be lucky to get away with 20 000 - around March 20 I think
I thought he would lose his job and when all the forms etec were in by Dec 20 - the final tally would be 5 000
oops luckily they didnt call on me ! or NJ ! - didnt he spend a long time saying "epidemic what epidemic
it is all a question of re-labelling the disposable population"
oh no this is awful - there is a method of sligging off an opponent isnt there where you mis-state what he says or said
and then demolish it as nonsense
I recollect Whitty saying weeks ago - that we would be lucky to get away with 20 000 - around March 20 I think
I thought he would lose his job and when all the forms etec were in by Dec 20 - the final tally would be 5 000
oops luckily they didnt call on me ! or NJ ! - didnt he spend a long time saying "epidemic what epidemic
it is all a question of re-labelling the disposable population"
Dr Lee's first point seems to be a matter of perspective. If the worst flu death toll per year is estimated to be 30,000, and we have already exceeded that in barely two months, I'm not sure that I can agree with the idea that it's really "in the same ball park". The rises in all-cause mortality, driven heavily by Covid-19, are remarkable. In some places, such as New York, the effective death rate has gone up by at least 300%, and while it may turn out to be a short-term spike it's simply not credible to expect governments not to react to that. Nor is it clear that all those who were dying were "approaching the end of their lives", which is vague enough that it handily can't be challenged. If at the end of the year we see several weeks of lower than average deaths then, sure, I'll turn out to have been wrong and thank goodness, but for the moment I don't think there's any evidence to support his claim on that point. Or at least we'll have to wait until next year.
Ditto point 4, which strikes me as almost grasping for a measure that supports his point; certainly, any measure of QALY will be far more difficult than other statistics, so it will be tricky to evaluate one way or another.
Point 6 suffers because it's clearly a made-up number. We can assume 50,000 deaths equates to a 1/200 chance of death only if everybody over 65 catches Covid by the end of the pandemic, which is unlikely, although not impossible. As far as I'm aware the evidence tends to suggest that if indeed everybody over 65 caught this then a 1/200 death rate is probably, sadly, wild optimism.
Point 7 is a matter of perspective again. For my part if the sacrifices I'm making help save any lives then they are well worth it. Isn't that what community spirit is about? People change their habits in response to a crisis, it's what we are good at.
To be sure, the scientific understanding is constantly evolving, and so in that sense I completely agree with the sentiments in Dr Lee's final passages: "following the science" can and absolutely does mean changing course as appropriate, and, when necessary, admitting that the old approach was wrong, however well-intentioned.
Ditto point 4, which strikes me as almost grasping for a measure that supports his point; certainly, any measure of QALY will be far more difficult than other statistics, so it will be tricky to evaluate one way or another.
Point 6 suffers because it's clearly a made-up number. We can assume 50,000 deaths equates to a 1/200 chance of death only if everybody over 65 catches Covid by the end of the pandemic, which is unlikely, although not impossible. As far as I'm aware the evidence tends to suggest that if indeed everybody over 65 caught this then a 1/200 death rate is probably, sadly, wild optimism.
Point 7 is a matter of perspective again. For my part if the sacrifices I'm making help save any lives then they are well worth it. Isn't that what community spirit is about? People change their habits in response to a crisis, it's what we are good at.
To be sure, the scientific understanding is constantly evolving, and so in that sense I completely agree with the sentiments in Dr Lee's final passages: "following the science" can and absolutely does mean changing course as appropriate, and, when necessary, admitting that the old approach was wrong, however well-intentioned.
//My opinion is based on the fact that I, like Dr Lee, believe the country is being badly misled. //
It isn't just the country though is it! A recent post claimed that every country in the world has got it wrong, which I had to admire as an opening. Of course it isn't every country, but it is an awful lot of them. That's the problem for me. I don't have anything like enough knowledge to say that so many have it wrong. It doesn't help that I know that even if the governments had it right, you would still be able to find knowledgeable people like doctor Lee saying they didn't, and saying it convincingly.
It isn't just the country though is it! A recent post claimed that every country in the world has got it wrong, which I had to admire as an opening. Of course it isn't every country, but it is an awful lot of them. That's the problem for me. I don't have anything like enough knowledge to say that so many have it wrong. It doesn't help that I know that even if the governments had it right, you would still be able to find knowledgeable people like doctor Lee saying they didn't, and saying it convincingly.
As a couple of final points:
"This doctor/professor ...debunks the scientific advice."
No, he has merely disagreed with it. In itself that doesn't debunk anything. He has some important points that will need addressing, but let's not oversell the article.
// Proficiency in one discipline doesn’t equate to proficiency in another. //
Also true, but then again, what matters is what is being said, and why, rather than purely who is speaking. It's always a tricky balance to be found here but in the end the evaluation of the argument itself has to be more important.
Finally, to NJ's point, that "he" (ie, Prof Ferguson) "held the ear of government -- a lot more scientists than just Ferguson are behind the lockdown advice. There was an emerging consensus across research groups that the threat was real, and, by early March, present. See the attached link.
https:/
"This doctor/professor ...debunks the scientific advice."
No, he has merely disagreed with it. In itself that doesn't debunk anything. He has some important points that will need addressing, but let's not oversell the article.
// Proficiency in one discipline doesn’t equate to proficiency in another. //
Also true, but then again, what matters is what is being said, and why, rather than purely who is speaking. It's always a tricky balance to be found here but in the end the evaluation of the argument itself has to be more important.
Finally, to NJ's point, that "he" (ie, Prof Ferguson) "held the ear of government -- a lot more scientists than just Ferguson are behind the lockdown advice. There was an emerging consensus across research groups that the threat was real, and, by early March, present. See the attached link.
https:/
//Well, a piece in The Spectator magazine 'carries more weight' than opinions on this forum, //
In fairness to New Judge, when he gives numbers they do seem to stack up better than those of Doctor John Lee, who seems to make basic errors, where the results just happen to make his assessments more credible. I recall the basis of one earlier report (also in The Spectator) was that X were hospitalised at that time and Y had died therefore X divided by Y gave you a death rate of those hospitalised. He then multiplied the number hospitalised by some factor he thought reasonable to represent the total infected and came up with a death rate for the virus. Of course, as no doubt you have realised, his starting point for that would only be a reasonable if he knew that those who hadn’t died in hospital weren’t going to die, which, sadly, was very unlikely be the case.
In fairness to New Judge, when he gives numbers they do seem to stack up better than those of Doctor John Lee, who seems to make basic errors, where the results just happen to make his assessments more credible. I recall the basis of one earlier report (also in The Spectator) was that X were hospitalised at that time and Y had died therefore X divided by Y gave you a death rate of those hospitalised. He then multiplied the number hospitalised by some factor he thought reasonable to represent the total infected and came up with a death rate for the virus. Of course, as no doubt you have realised, his starting point for that would only be a reasonable if he knew that those who hadn’t died in hospital weren’t going to die, which, sadly, was very unlikely be the case.
//Misled how, and by whom? //
By the government into believing that all we need to do is stay indoors for an indeterminate time, emerge at the end with the virus gone, all go back to work as if nothing has happened.
No, I know that's not what they're actually saying. But like Dr Lee, I believe there are many among the population supporting the lockdown because that's what they believe (either that or they enjoy the idea of a few weeks off in the summer). Actually, if people want to see no more infections and no more deaths I don't really see an alternative to the lockdown to satisfy them. It seems not to have significantly reduced either but many people seem to think it cannot be lifted.
Like Dr Lee, I see no indications from anyone in government (apart from a slight wobble or two from the Chancellor) that the current arrangements are, economically, completely unsustainable.
By the government into believing that all we need to do is stay indoors for an indeterminate time, emerge at the end with the virus gone, all go back to work as if nothing has happened.
No, I know that's not what they're actually saying. But like Dr Lee, I believe there are many among the population supporting the lockdown because that's what they believe (either that or they enjoy the idea of a few weeks off in the summer). Actually, if people want to see no more infections and no more deaths I don't really see an alternative to the lockdown to satisfy them. It seems not to have significantly reduced either but many people seem to think it cannot be lifted.
Like Dr Lee, I see no indications from anyone in government (apart from a slight wobble or two from the Chancellor) that the current arrangements are, economically, completely unsustainable.
There are some who argue the government should have introduced lockdown much earlier and it's far too early to relax it now. Most scientists seem to be taking that view. There are some who argue that lockdown has been ineffective and should be abandoned now so we can focus on the economy. Both groups can find something written by a scientist that supports their view and convinces them they are right. Maybe the reality is somewhere between the two, but having considered both sides I'd rather go with the majority view, both here and across most other countries, but I accept there is a small chance it could have been wrong course
