So my 'a year ago' tweet is 'a year ago you might have thought that after a year you would have a way to join up epidemiology and macro to chart the way out of social distancing as vaccines roll out. But no, we haven't.
You might say - ah, come on, it's almost over, what's the point now? But actually all the more point as we are approaching a situation where genuine trade-offs between £ and wealth are in play again.
And we could also be using it to fine tune the lockdown release; weigh moral and £ priorities as the vaccinated expand the risk budget. Who gets to resume what aspect of normal life when and why?
Of course.... we have a route out of lockdown. It's just devoid of any joined up, transparent and scrutinisable discussion of how competing risks and priorities are weighed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Is it a contribution to get unnamed sources to tell us how they felt? It's a classic ploy of the political correspondent to turn a holding to account exercise into a how did you feel exercise. And a drama composed of 'pivotal moments'. We like reading about pivotal moments.
Some telling moments compressed out of sight. The obvious - understandable - lie that Johnson was fine and working on his in box 'has been put down to a mix up'.
At the root of this are two questions 1) are there different objectives, including different attitude to risks? and or 2) are different bodies making judgements of different quality given the data we have currently?
I don't think you can say that other bodies are above criticism because they might just have different approaches. 2) is a live question, and IMO, given available evidence, there isn't a reasonable alternative objective that would justify the response [to the blood clot issue].
Decision by some govts - eg Irish - to pause Astra Zeneca now, and invoking the 'precautionary principle' seems very odd. And the wrong inference to draw from invoking the precautionary principle.
This is not a vague notion of 'taking precautions' [eg eliminating the risk of health problems or death by blood clots].
The idea is to weigh up the costs of being wrong when you take two competing views and the decisions that flow from them, but you don't know the probabilities attached to each event.
The covid triangle article in the FT is really something. It would be really interesting to try to build inequality into a macro-epi model somehow, to grapple with the aggregate wealth and health consequences of inequality during a pandemic.
Obvs this is what makes a post pandemic budget that attempts no recompense for what happened, nor any recipe, nor even a conversation about what to do about mitigating some future pandemic, frankly obscene.
It's also not rational from the point of view of those at the top of the pile, even if you assumed they had no sense of altruism or social justice.
I fancied picking up the violin again, after we dug one out of my in laws. I only made it to grade 3 before giving up. But in lockdown one, I was entranced with 'Ashokan Farewell' which Ken Burns plays to death during his doc on the civil war.
So I am trying to play it. Here is a version of it on the interweb [not me obvs]:
Interesting thing is that though it sounds to the uneducated ear to be located in the period, it was composed in 1982.