Long thread -> This is a great BBC Newsnight interview with Prof. Graham Medley about the modelling of the coronavirus spread and herd immunity. I reckon the "act as if you have the virus" advice is genius and should be widely shared:
Later in the Newsnight episode, there was this chart, showing that the UK has chosen not to enact any of the measures (like school closures, etc) used in other countries to try to slow the epidemic. 
At the No. 10 press conference earlier, both the Chief Scientific Officer and the Chief Medical Officer gave the reason why: they think that if we enacted measures too early, people would get "fatigued", which could make things worse in a few months.
Which raises some questions. What's the evidence that people would get fatigued and stop following government advice to self-isolate (if ill) or use social distance (if well), particularly in the case of an horrific global pandemic?
Does the advice to delay come from complex modelling by infectious disease epidemiologists? If so, I'd be somewhat reassured (though of course there's still the question of why our epidemiological models indicate different advice from those in other countries).
Does the advice to delay come from the Behavioural Insights Team? At first it appeared as if they were just advising the government on helping encourage handwashing, which seemed really useful. But today it appeared as if their role had expanded - e.g.
If it's from the Behavioural Insights Team, I'd be worried. Behavioural Science (i.e. psychology research) hasn't had a great few years in terms of its replicability - and not just that. Studies done in one context don't necessarily *generalize* to others. psyarxiv.com/jqw35
At the moment, as far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) we haven't seen the epidemiological models, and we haven't seen evidence from the Insights Team. So we don't know the provenance of the "fatigue" idea. This isn't to say it isn't well-evidenced: but we don't know.
It's great that the government are engaging so closely with scientists and experts - genuinely. But it would be reassuring if the experts pointed us towards the evidence/arguments/reasoning for their positions, rather than stating them as if they were mere common sense.
Especially, at the risk of repeating myself, when scientists in other countries clearly *don't* think the delay idea is common sense. Perhaps we'll end up looking really smart in a few months - but it would still be good to see the reasoning.
Earlier in the week I was scolded by a fellow scientist for being sceptical of the application of behavioural science in this case. That scientist later shared government plans for pandemic influenza and urged us to just accept unquestioningly that they would apply to COVID-19.
This blog post by a behavioural science professor who's advising the government on COVID-19 lists lots of excellent questions for study - but, crucially, we haven't got the studies yet. blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/02/28…
Given the replication issue, the generalizability issue, the lack of clarity around the evidence, and the admitted lack of much of the data we need, I think it's legit to question the influence of behavioural science on these policies (if, indeed, it's had any influence).
And it's also legit to ask further questions. For instance, can anyone think of a reason that the government didn't suggest several days ago that, where possible, people should work from home more often? In cases where they don't physically need to be in the office?
Maybe there's an unintended consequence they're trying to avoid by not giving the advice (or support) to work from home, but after racking my brains and talking to lots of people, I genuinely can't think what it could be.
Anyway, end of thread. Please wash your hands.
Anyway, end of thread. Please wash your hands.
