Coronavirus

[RogerS]

That isn't peer review, Roger.

You and Andy Kev both know very well what I mean.

It's not rocket science for someone else to take a look at the model and the key parameters. I don't care what you call it.

And it's neither a question of them starting with a blank sheet of paper. The maths is well known...here's a starting point for you

They even took their own existing model ! It wouldn't have taken much to ask someone else to review the new results.

 

[Chris152]

Reviewing the methodology used in any piece of research certainly forms part of peer review in any discipline. If the methodology includes use of inappropriate data as the basis for what follows, it fails before the review has got started.
So what Roger describes is part of peer review.

 

[Jake]

I don't know why you are being attacked about peer review Roger when it was someone else's daft analogy.

They had several modelling teams, and the strategy they went for based on the Imperial College one was very controversial when they went for it. Not later. At the time. There were reportedly bitter arguments about it in SAGE - we now know why. There is no reasonable way of governing which does not include a thorough audit of the model you intend to rely on in those circumstances (even if there is consensus, it should be done when potentially millions of lives hang on it). It is so easy to mess up an Excel model, either by simple coding error or by messing up an implicit or explicit assumption (not exhaustive list, but the ones that spring to mind from personal experience). The first takes dog work and testing, the second is harder to spot, the third is the easiest to check. This was in that third category, and it was grievously and obviously out of line with reality. I made the point before that when the furore reached the stage that Johnson had to concede the modelling would be published, it took 10 days for the Imperial College paper to be published with simultaneous apparent U-turn in policy to be announced. There is a big lead time for the latter bits of choreography. They spotted it in the first few days once they thought it was going to be published and exposed to scrutiny. No need for any "peer review", they knew themselves once they held themselves to a publicly accountable standard.

I find it interesting how many people want to defend this. I can understand the sympathy for people making hard decisions and difficult trade offs. This isn't that though, it is simply basic competence, and shockingly absent in a decision that will affect millions and may now take tens or hundreds of thousands of lives that might have been saved with a decision taken with proper care.

 

[That would work]

Too much vindictiveness in a word.

 

[MikeG.]

Before we chase off down this rabbit hole, this wasn't published science. It was advice from scientists to government. Published papers can take 10 or 12 weeks in the peer review process, and then await the next publication slot. Many of these journals publish once a month. If Roger really is suggesting that the government waited 4 months before receiving their advice then I think he may just have missed the urgency of this situation.

 

[Chris152]

Peer review isn't an absolute that refers only to publication in professional journals - it takes place all the time in research, takes different forms and may have nothing to do with publication.

 

[MikeG.]

My daughter has been doing research for the last 5 or 6 years, and has never heard of peer review other than for publication. Her field is ethology. Maybe your field is different, and if you are right I bow to your superior knowledge.

Fundamentally, when we are in the midst of a crisis I find it disturbing that people focus on the irrelevant. It's gone. It's history. We can learn the lessons afterwards. Right now there are tens of thousands of lives at stake and this chatter isn't contributing at all. Actually, it's worse than that. Constant sniping at the decisions being taken in good faith can only lead to people having less faith in government and specialist advice with the result that fewer people would do what they're supposed to do...........and that would endanger lives. What if I said "oh right, they're all idiots, those so-called experts and politicians. I'm going to ignore their advice and carry on life as normal"? How many people would die as a result? There are people who behave like that. This irritating nit picking is actually endangering life, and should, in my view, stop.

 

[Lons]

Fundamentally, when we are in the midst of a crisis I find it disturbing that people focus on the irrelevant. It's gone. It's history. We can learn the lessons afterwards. Right now there are tens of thousands of lives at stake and this chatter isn't contributing at all. Actually, it's worse than that. Constant sniping at the decisions being taken in good faith can only lead to people having less faith in government and specialist advice with the result that fewer people would do what they're supposed to do...........and that would endanger lives. What if I said "oh right, they're all idiots, those so-called experts and politicians. I'm going to ignore their advice and carry on life as normal"? How many people would die as a result? There are people who behave like that. This irritating nit picking is actually endangering life, and should, in my view, stop.

=D> =D>

 

[Chris152]

I've not followed every post here Mike, but I wouldn't say calling attention to fundamental flaws in the science that led to inadequate steps being taken by government to protect us is nit picking. As for disregarding govt advice - my response has been to take more stringent steps than advised by the government in order to protect myself and my family. And I think that's what anyone should be doing, given the evidence that the government has failed to lock things down quickly enough to protect us. Any one who thinks they needn't bother would have completely missed the point.

 

[Jake]

My daughter has been doing research for the last 5 or 6 years, and has never heard of peer review other than for publication. Her field is ethology. Maybe your field is different, and if you are right I bow to your superior knowledge.

Fundamentally, when we are in the midst of a crisis I find it disturbing that people focus on the irrelevant. It's gone. It's history. We can learn the lessons afterwards. Right now there are tens of thousands of lives at stake and this chatter isn't contributing at all. Actually, it's worse than that. Constant sniping at the decisions being taken in good faith can only lead to people having less faith in government and specialist advice with the result that fewer people would do what they're supposed to do...........and that would endanger lives. What if I said "oh right, they're all idiots, those so-called experts and politicians. I'm going to ignore their advice and carry on life as normal"? How many people would die as a result? There are people who behave like that. This irritating nit picking is actually endangering life, and should, in my view, stop.

The problem is that people should be ignoring government advice because it is negligently lax - they should be doing more, but the government will not admit it has messed up. So stuff your soporific attempt at loftiness.

I hope you get well, I hope we all stay well, but the latter is not going to happen for a lot of people because a few took a lackadaisical approach and continue to do so.

 

[Nigel Burden]

Reports on face book report that a gang of youths have congregated outside of the local Co-op and are coughing on passer bys.

Nigel.

 

[FatmanG]

My daughter has been doing research for the last 5 or 6 years, and has never heard of peer review other than for publication. Her field is ethology. Maybe your field is different, and if you are right I bow to your superior knowledge.

Fundamentally, when we are in the midst of a crisis I find it disturbing that people focus on the irrelevant. It's gone. It's history. We can learn the lessons afterwards. Right now there are tens of thousands of lives at stake and this chatter isn't contributing at all. Actually, it's worse than that. Constant sniping at the decisions being taken in good faith can only lead to people having less faith in government and specialist advice with the result that fewer people would do what they're supposed to do...........and that would endanger lives. What if I said "oh right, they're all idiots, those so-called experts and politicians. I'm going to ignore their advice and carry on life as normal"? How many people would die as a result? There are people who behave like that. This irritating nit picking is actually endangering life, and should, in my view, stop.

The problem is that people should be ignoring government advice because it is negligently lax - they should be doing more, but the government will not admit it has messed up. So stuff your soporific attempt at loftiness.

I hope you get well, I hope we all stay well, but the latter is not going to happen for a lot of people because a few took a lackadaisical approach and continue to do so.[/quote]

Jake you are clearly a very intelligent, articulate and passionate man, are you a politician? Do you know how govt decision making works? Why is the rest of europe in such a state? Are all politicians throughout europe guilty of gross negligence. What is the answer now?
FG

 

[MikeG.]

Jake, I'm not going to argue with you. I've posted with you for many years and I respect you (and Roger). I deeply resent the arguments you won't stop running with here, so I'm not going to feed them any more. I'll report my progress, but I'm not interacting with you on this subject any more.

 

[Andy Kev.]

Peer review isn't an absolute that refers only to publication in professional journals - it takes place all the time in research, takes different forms and may have nothing to do with publication.

I must say that I too have never heard of it taking place outside professional journals.

But whether or not that is the case, peer review consists by definition of handing over what you have done or in the case in question what you have decided to do, to independent experts for their evaluation.

Now - and this is quite a serious point as opposed to point scoring - how much time do you think a government and its expert advisors - acting under the most high pressure conditions i.e. expected to select one course of action from a choice of many for immediate implementation - has for the luxury of handing over their plan to independent experts for their view, bearing in mind that they too by extension would also be under possibly even more pressure to come up with a view pretty damned quick?

What we have had on here (and I suppose that this is back to point scoring) is a bloke(s) who has heard the term "peer review" once, got a vague but incorrect idea of what it means and then tries to use the concept as a stick with which to beat the government.

This all seems to me to add up to reasons for evaluating the government's performance once the whole thing is done and dusted. We simply cannot come to a sensible conclusion at the moment. Mind you, if we have a political axe to grind, we were perfectly capable of coming to a 100% watertight conclusion before the problem even landed on the relevant desks in No 10.

 

[Andy Kev.]

Reports on face book report that a gang of youths have congregated outside of the local Co-op and are coughing on passer bys.

Nigel.

That's barely believable. What sort of education have these youths had to make them think that that is in any way acceptable? What is there appreciation of real life?

I trust somebody called the police as a bit of police brutality would do them no end of good.

 

[RogerS]

Peer review isn't an absolute that refers only to publication in professional journals - it takes place all the time in research, takes different forms and may have nothing to do with publication.

I must say that I too have never heard of it taking place outside professional journals.

But whether or not that is the case, peer review consists by definition of handing over what you have done or in the case in question what you have decided to do, to independent experts for their evaluation.

Now - and this is quite a serious point as opposed to point scoring - how much time do you think a government and its expert advisors - acting under the most high pressure conditions i.e. expected to select one course of action from a choice of many for immediate implementation - has for the luxury of handing over their plan to independent experts for their view, bearing in mind that they too by extension would also be under possibly even more pressure to come up with a view pretty damned quick?

What we have had on here (and I suppose that this is back to point scoring) is a bloke(s) who has heard the term "peer review" once, got a vague but incorrect idea of what it means and then tries to use the concept as a stick with which to beat the government.

This all seems to me to add up to reasons for evaluating the government's performance once the whole thing is done and dusted. We simply cannot come to a sensible conclusion at the moment. Mind you, if we have a political axe to grind, we were perfectly capable of coming to a 100% watertight conclusion before the problem even landed on the relevant desks in No 10.

Just keep on digging. I'm not bothering to reply to you after this.

 

[Steve Maskery]

That's barely believable.

Sadly, living in the sort of neighbourhood that I do, I have no difficulty in believing that at all.

I'm glad that you live somewhere rather more salubrious.

Mind you, when I'm out in my helmet, I don't get any flack, not even from the local cognoscenti.

 

[Jake]

Knowing you to be a carefully researching fellow, Steve, I'm sure those are P3 filters!

 

[Jake]

Mind you, if we have a political axe to grind, we were perfectly capable of coming to a 100% watertight conclusion before the problem even landed on the relevant desks in No 10.

Just keep on digging. I'm not bothering to reply to you after this.

Roger you are just to the left of Genghis, and this guy thinks you are being politically partisan by criticising a Tory government decision for being made on negligent science without any decent audit.

PMSL all the rest of the night.

 

[Steve Maskery]

If I'm honest Jake, I can't remember what they are. But it stops me coughing on anyone else, it stops them coughing on my face (though not on my hands unless I am wearing disposable gloves - I did a couple of days ago and forgot today), and it also stops me touching my face. That is really hard to avoid when you rely on contact lenses for your sight.

It's an imperfect solution, but, I hope, a lot better than nothing.

As I said earlier, I expect that I shall get it sooner or later. At one time I wold have said "Bring it on", but these days I actually want to carry on and do a few more things before The Eventual Day. Life is much better than it was a few years ago.

So this is an attempt at beating the odds. It may work, it may not.