Show Us The Science

Scientists are sharing information with politicians upon which huge decisions about our safety and the future of our children and grandchildren will depend. The discussions are taking place behind closed doors and no external observations or scrutiny is allowed before decisions are made.

It occurs to me that we need answers to some straightforward, but scientifically technical questions in order to measure risk properly. I've listed these below...

1. How is an amount of infection measured?

2. Can we have an explanation of the difference between 'the infectious dose' and the 'viral load' as these are important. (As far as I understand it, the 'infectious dose' is the minimum amount of virus that you need to be infected with to develop symptoms.)

3. Will the 'infectious dose' that you are exposed to at the beginning determine whether you are more likely to die or not from the virus? In other words, does a small amount of virus make you sick but not kill you, whereas a large amount might - or is it the case that large or small amount of exposure to the virus just gets the 'fire started' but does not determine the outcome.

4. If the infectious amount is a determinant of survival outcome, shouldn't we be getting advice on 'survival' strategies if we are unlucky enough to get the virus. Did you know, for example, that in Wuhan - after several doctors and nurses working in hospitals were dying - they decided to start doubling up on the PPE that they were wearing: 2 pairs of gloves, two coveralls, two aprons etc. You would think that this was to stop the virus getting through a single layer...but it wasn't. The reason was to do with reducing the 'infectious amount' that they were exposed to. Having two layers meant that they could take one off and dispose of it, periodically, to reduce the total amount of virus they were exposed to. Did they have enough 'science' to base this on? No. They went with a hunch and it seemed to work.

Similarly, I want to know if we should be asking people to change\ wash clothes\ bedding several times a day(!!) to reduce the total amount of virus that they're exposed to if symptoms develop.

5. Can someone create a matrix that shows us the different likelihoods of getting the virus. For example, what are the chances of picking up the virus from walking past an infected person in the street, who is only breathing but not coughing or sneezing? How does that compare with the chances of picking it up from touching a work surface for 5 seconds that has virus on it... or pushing an infected supermarket trolley for 10 minutes.

6. The Scottish Government says only that 'there is some evidence' that wearing a cloth mask could help reduce the spread of infection. "Some Evidence"? Exactly what does 'some evidence' look like? This sounds dodgy to me. In respect of this alone, I want to know if wearing a face mask might increase our risk of reinfecting ourselves or amplifying our exposure to the virus if 'infectious amount' - outlined before - is a consideration. And does this evidence take into account the fact that some people will wear the masks for far longer than they are meant to, not wash them and leave them lying around on public transport seats, for example, for other people to come in contact with.

So, being open - and showing us the science upon which the decisions are to be made - makes a lot of sense to me.

Why the contribution is important

This is important if you genuinely want to have a 'grown up conversation' with the population

Mantras like 'stay home, wash your hands and save lives' have a shelf life

If you explain the risks to people in detail, you'll take the country with you when it comes to making hard decisions.

If you don't - and start forcing people out of business on 'some evidence' only you're inviting legal challenges on a scale never seen before in this country - and a descent into chaos.

by MarkMcConway on May 10, 2020 at 01:38PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 4.7
Based on: 16 votes

Comments

  • Posted by lynr May 10, 2020 at 13:44

    I agree.
    That would certainly be treating as adults who can manage information.

  • Posted by Chimp May 10, 2020 at 13:47

    Well said.

  • Posted by cnanguy May 10, 2020 at 14:16

    Absolutely agree. A lot of us are doing our own research to calculate these risks for ourselves. Ever developing scientific findings on an international scale need to be reported. Governments should stop underestimating the population's capacity for assimilating knowledge. I want to hear more than how the creation of a vaccine is developing. That doesn't seem to be the answer, anyway. It's being touted as the grand solution but I don't believe a safe vaccine will be developed for many years.

  • Posted by Ideas81 May 10, 2020 at 14:40

    Agree with this. Give people information and let them make decisions for themselves

  • Posted by emwpaisley May 10, 2020 at 15:09

    Agree but I have always wondered What Science? Is it based on tenuous modelling or would that be following the Math? And given the government think we are not capable of assessing what a metre is (resulting in them doubling that for distancing) I would seriously doubt they would consider the general public capable which is either a sad reflection on them or worst still on the public

  • Posted by wisteria May 10, 2020 at 15:47

    I think that because there is so much unknown about this virus, scientists can only make assumptions or rather educated guesses as to the aetiology of this virus. Therefore there will be many different opinions and all equally valid. Someone has to assimilate this information and then make a forward plan that would seem the safest and most effective. We are then asked to comply as a nation. If the scientific data were simply published for us to all make up our own individual minds, there would be no consensus, therefore no plan and we would all be a lot less safe.

  • Posted by jeniandtim May 10, 2020 at 18:46

    We are repeatedly told that policy is driven by the science, so please show us the science including the uncertainties and limitations. We can then be better informed and make rational decisions as a population and as individuals.

  • Posted by geforse1 May 10, 2020 at 20:59

    I emailed the Scottish Government (& my MSP) a few weeks ago requesting a copies of the Scottish Government COVID-19 Advisory Group minutes - they responded by saying it would be dealt as a 'freedom of information' request which will takes weeks/ months. So much for Nicola's transparency!

    The Government's attitude is patronising.

    Share the evidence and show us the science.

  • Posted by Cathol May 11, 2020 at 18:58

    Agree,
    Two months on was the initial model used correct? Does the evidence substantiate it or not? If not then what other models where suggested and compare the evidence to those.

    If they are unsure, share the facts they have and allow people to make their own judgement.

    Initial lockdown, yes, continued? Why?
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas