Yesterday, I asked Sir Charles Bean from @OBR_UK if he agrees analysts have not adequately taken into account the behavioural impact of coronavirus on the economy and on healthcare.
Sir Charles said the impact of the pandemic onto the economy comes through two routes…
@OBR_UK I then asked Richard Hughes, the Chair at @OBR_UK, to join me in calling on economists producing analysis of the costs to be careful not to fall into the error of miscategorising the source of harms.
Watch his response here:
@OBR_UK In my third question, I asked Andy King if he thinks it’s realistic @OBR_UK’s forecast doesn’t contain public spending on Covid from March 2022.
“That will emerge over the course of the next year as we learn more about how effectively the vaccines can be rolled out”.
@OBR_UK Andy King, @OBR_UK: “The ebb and flow of the virus has affected how the Chancellor has made his decisions”.
@OBR_UK I continued to ask, in those public spending decisions noted above, whether there’s been a degree of optimism bias and if that is a problem.
Richard Hughes: “optimism bias is in human nature”.
@OBR_UK I questioned the Chair of the @OBR_UK on his assessment of the Government’s willingness to live with this reality that this disease is now going to be endemic in our society.
Watch Richard Hughes response here:
@OBR_UK The @OBR_UK does not know how the Government is cutting £10 billion a year from non-covid departmental spending, in line with last week’s Comprehensive Spending Review.
@OBR_UK Economists are choosing to avoid the term ‘austerity’, according to Richard Hughes of the @OBR_UK.
Discussing the public sector pay freeze, Hughes also chose not to comment on how MPs set their pay, which is set by @IPSAUK.
@OBR_UK@ipsaUK "The Government is more exposed to rises in interest rates. Long term interest rates are not locked...10 years ago 1/4 of public sector debt had a maturity of less than one year, that ratio is more than 1/2…the consequences of a rise of interest rates would be felt more quickly"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. A lack of public review: models often contain internally inconsistent and non-replicable numbers.
2. Poor characterisation of statistical uncertainty: uncertainty bounds are either not reported at all or have extremely wide ranges.
3. Non-existent or circular model validation: some scientists have argued that few healthcare models can ever be validated against reality, yet they should still be used to make decisions. Research papers can pre-suppose their own conclusions.
Lord Sumption: "SAGE is working on a case fatality rate of 0.7%. So 4,000 deaths per day equates to about 4 million new cases per week. These are Noddyland numbers. They are designed to frighten, not to inform"
@BucksCouncil 2 / I am delighted @BucksCouncil have implemented a ‘Helping Hand’ scheme, using £110,000 given for this purpose by the Government.
@BucksCouncil 3 / This bespoke, community-led scheme has focused on those who need help locally, directly seeking to help parents who might struggle during these unprecedented times.
For people trying to understand what the row is this week over coronavirus law, please see the attached summary of procedure for delegated legislation, here:
The problem is that the Government has been over-using the "rare" made affirmative procedure.
"Most SIs subject to the affirmative procedure are laid in the form of a draft SI. They are considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI)." ...
"The role of this committee is to scrutinise the SI to ensure it is legal and *does not go beyond the powers specified in the parent Act*." [emphasis mine]
The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 is subject to JR, now at appeal:
"We need a system which meets the joint ambitions of the Government and Parliament for prompt and effective action, with few opportunities for mischief and yet prior parliamentary approval before liberties are taken away."
"To get our economy back on track, we need global leadership in great economic governance through Prosperity Zones like the City of London Corporation or the Dubai International Financial Zone."