I know this is very, er, yesterday, and we’ve all moved onto the economic support, but I still don’t think the virus strategy is getting enough scrutiny. I’ve been thinking about the “advice”, especially after a quick walk around my town, around 6:30pm.
I might be channelling my inner @nntaleb here, but I just don’t think a “right things, right time” approach is compatible with “advice”, as the govt haven’t really *done* anything. The social distancing guidelines say “steps you can take… avoid pubs, restaurants”
So, walking around my medium sized town/small city, there were at about 200-250 people in pubs, restaurants, gyms and so on, of varying density (restaurants were sparse, pubs less so).
Is there a model somewhere which says “Bojo waffle advice = 60% compliance; BoJo stern command = 80% compliance”?
Even if there is, there must be huge uncertainty around it. There’s probably a study somewhere on “how people respond to pandemic instructions” but it’ll be almost meaningless in different circumstances.
So are the Govt monitoring this? Actual CV19 data on infection and death has a huge lag, so are the govt trying to monitor with some real time data if they’re getting what they want or planned for? What do they want? They’ve not said – they have merely advised.
So it seems a bit rich to say “we won’t close schools (partially) because of unintended consequences” and then issue instructions with hugely uncertain effects. How well is the strategy working? I’m not sure we can know, in which case “right measures, right time” is unknowable BS
And that’s not even factoring in the uncertainty from a Taleb-esque fat tail risk (see also that SK patient). We’ve allowed the effects of instruction to be determined by myriad arts organisations, bars, pubs, and private individuals, rather than having control of the situation.
The French, Italians and Spanish (and Chinese before them) have gone to a level of instruction which incorporates near certainty. People are indoors, under almost martial law. We’ve *added* another variable into the mix, we’ve added uncertainty. For what gain?
The economic effect? Today’s announcement shows we’re well past that. Clinging to liberty? Even in the face of a collective action problem like pandemic response?
All it seems to have done is dampen down potential for spread in a *highly* uncertain way, meaning we’re even more in the dark than we were; in such circumstances, there can be no such thing as “right measures, right time” because we have no idea what we’ve just done.
What does the government *want* us to do? Are we doing it? Is avoiding total shutdown, which a precautionary principle and Occam's razor view of the stats would advise, worth the uncertainty?
Thread partially inspired by some dissenters to the current approach, like @Heresy_Corner @sjwrenlewis @nntaleb @sambowman @bickerrecord and a recent convo @dlknowles @jessbrammar had in the last hour. The end
