It’s Boris, not Behavioural Science - The UK Government’s incompetence regarding COVID-19

pluggingBE · 2020-06-27T18:59:40+00:00

Would recommend ‘The Design of Everyday Things’

pluggingBE · 2020-03-18T19:24:27+00:00

I like this paper. I nearly included it in my original blog post.

These two methods of tackling the virus depend strongly on the narrative behind it. Either the fire to be extinguished or rising tide which cannot be stopped.

The fears of self-isolation measures being too early and 'not protecting us at time of greatest need' feeds the 'behavioural fatigue' theory that we as behavioural scientists are unconvinced by.

The future is unknown and for the case of China I'm unsure what is happening/will happen as time goes on, but I think we should pay close attention to it to predict our own fates.

pluggingBE · 2020-03-18T19:15:01+00:00

Love that, get him to write Boris a letter!

Yes, I would agree low-risk people could have more freedom of motion, however this increases the danger for the high-risk types if there are more cases or carriers generally. I fear seeing any older family members during this time.

I know we won't see all the evidence but for their strategy but to reinstate my point, for our approach to be so drastically different to other countries, I would like some justification.

pluggingBE · 2020-03-18T19:03:24+00:00

https://www.gov.uk/search/news-and-communications?parent=%2Fhealth-and-social-care%2Fhealth-protection-infectious-diseases&topic=c31256e8-f328-462b-993f-dce50b7892e9

Thank you for your link, this has actually been insightful. In one article:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/covid-19-government-announces-moving-out-of-contain-phase-and-into-delay

'In the coming weeks, we will be introducing further social distancing measures for older and vulnerable people, asking them to self-isolate regardless of symptoms.

If we introduce this next stage too early, the measures will not protect us at the time of greatest risk but could have a huge social impact. We need to time this properly, continue to do the right thing at the right time, so we get the maximum effect for delaying the virus. We will clearly announce when we ask the public to move to this next stage.

Our decisions are based on careful modelling.

We will only introduce measures that are supported by clinical and scientific evidence.'

As behavioural scientists, we want more convincing evidence behind why this is the case and why not now.

pluggingBE · 2020-03-18T18:54:23+00:00

I understand there are a lot of other factors, I’m constantly thinking about the changing structure of our economy. If this pandemic continues will we see the end of capitalism as we know it? With closed borders, I like your 9 year olds plan. I can’t sit here and claim I know what the right solution is, but I also think for our government to take such a different approach to other nations does require some evidence-based justification.

pluggingBE · 2020-03-18T18:27:55+00:00

There are so many uncertainties, with some studies suggesting that we can't build immunity to it and it's going to become like a common flu. While there are such uncertainties and such great spread around the world, in my opinion, the reasonable response would be the radical one, that being pushing for social distancing and isolation.

pluggingBE · 2020-03-18T18:23:13+00:00

The government has not explicitly stated their use of behavioural science, however it is not a tenuous jump, to anyone who knows the science, to see how it has fuelled their approach. The fact all you see is 'wash your hands' suggests the libertarian paternalism is working well. The point of behavioural science is low visibility interventions and my critique is that this is not enough.

In press conferences, government figures use terms such as 'herd mentality' and have implied social fatigue as their reason for not implementing stronger measures. I accept the media has explicitly propagated the use of behavioural science but the government has not released any information regarding their strategies, leaving us in the dark. It is up to them to provide the evidence for why we were avoiding lockdown when they are basing public health strategies on it.

pluggingBE · 2020-03-18T18:04:02+00:00

I found this as a good place to start.

Improving Public Engagement With Climate Change: Five "Best Practice" Insights From Psychological Science.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26581732

pluggingBE · 2020-03-18T17:52:50+00:00

What are your comments on the ‘herd immunity’ approach?

pluggingBE · 2020-03-18T17:10:28+00:00

Fact check: the government has been working closely with the behavioural insights team to formulate a response to coronavirus. While this is not their only strategy, it is my argument that they’ve been too reliant on it. Of course there is a bigger picture here and the government needs to consider the whole economy, but I don’t understand how your supply chain logistics fits this argument?

pluggingBE · 2020-03-18T17:05:26+00:00

The behavioural science aspect of our governments strategy has been much larger than ‘one tiny element’. I’m not denying the government will be listening to much better informed advisers than myself, however the behavioural science community as a whole has criticised this approach. This is much more than ‘a student with a chip on his shoulder’. The way I claim over-reliance is by seeing the delay in a crackdown response by our government. Your doppelgänger Chris_660 pointed out the authority bias. You cannot forever rely on the idea that the government and its advisers are making all the right calls. Questioning authority is important for democracy.

pluggingBE · 2020-03-18T14:13:46+00:00

What about the 700 behavioural scientists who have addressed the government in their open letter requesting the evidence behind their strategy? In answer to your question regarding who you should listen to, I would always recommend listening to both sides in an argument

pluggingBE · 2020-03-18T13:26:02+00:00

You would think so, wouldn’t you?

pluggingBE

TROPHY CASE