I am more than happy to accept this is normal modelling behaviour and I am an idiot - half of that is true already but the wider lack of media pick-up on it, even to just explain why it's not an issue is a surprise to me.
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
“Has Nadine just been cancelled?”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Media pick up to Fraser Nelson's tweeted exchange, not my question to BMCL lol
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-the-media-gets-wrong-about-sage-s-models
two months ago from the same person in the magazine edited by Nelson. What is in the above is consistent with their exchange. The assumption of same severity as delta was clearly within the published results, and talked about on here. Journalists who take a paper they don’t understand and turn “there could be up to X deaths or hospitalisations if Y happens, but with these caveats” into “X DEATHS WILL HAPPEN” is a constant frustration for those of us who do modelling.
Also, any business that “plans for the best” isn’t a business, it’s an ex-business. The same applies to governments.
As a related note, I've just finished reading Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction by Dan Gardiner. Decent read. It's more about the people than the models.
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 45 seconds ago
As a related note, I've just finished reading Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction by Dan Gardiner. Decent read. It's more about the people than the models.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👍 cheers A1, will aim to take a look. (
Frost has defo resigned before Boris sells him out over the EU
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-the-media-gets-wrong-about-sage-s-models
two months ago from the same person in the magazine edited by Nelson. What is in the above is consistent with their exchange. The assumption of same severity as delta was clearly within the published results, and talked about on here. Journalists who take a paper they don’t understand and turn “there could be up to X deaths or hospitalisations if Y happens, but with these caveats” into “X DEATHS WILL HAPPEN” is a constant frustration for those of us who do modelling.
Also, any business that “plans for the best” isn’t a business, it’s an ex-business. The same applies to governments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not saying it should be best case scenario only though; no-one is. But it also shouldn’t only be about worst cases and ignoring reasonable outcomes. If the data on omicron is true when saying more transmissible but less fatal then why stick with using delta?
Plus, as I said, if a factor of ten is the best you can come up with then it’s not really much use for me tbh. I understand that it’s extremely complex as it’s about human behaviour but it’s still a factor of ten!
Like I said, if a CFO gave those numbers to his chairman, he wouldn’t be CFO for long.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-the-media-gets-wrong-about-sage-s-models
two months ago from the same person in the magazine edited by Nelson. What is in the above is consistent with their exchange. The assumption of same severity as delta was clearly within the published results, and talked about on here. Journalists who take a paper they don’t understand and turn “there could be up to X deaths or hospitalisations if Y happens, but with these caveats” into “X DEATHS WILL HAPPEN” is a constant frustration for those of us who do modelling.
Also, any business that “plans for the best” isn’t a business, it’s an ex-business. The same applies to governments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not saying it should be best case scenario only though; no-one is. But it also shouldn’t only be about worst cases and ignoring reasonable outcomes. If the data on omicron is true when saying more transmissible but less fatal then why stick with using delta?
Plus, as I said, if a factor of ten is the best you can come up with then it’s not really much use for me tbh. I understand that it’s extremely complex as it’s about human behaviour but it’s still a factor of ten!
Like I said, if a CFO gave those numbers to his chairman, he wouldn’t be CFO for long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How available/reliable was evidence on the severity of Omicron when these reports were commissioned?
2. I think finances are a lot more predictable than public health metrics when can include literally hundreds of different scenarios with regards to measures, vaccination rates, booster take up, mortality, a sliding scale with regards to treatment for sufferers as healthcare becomes overwhelmed.
Etc etc etc.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7447267/
This was an interesting read. It’s a nightmare job, forecasting is nigh on impossible. I have no issue with that.
My issue is when the assumptions used are omitting certain factors, seemingly deliberately from that Twitter exchange.
Honestly that Twitter exchanges tells you all you need to know…shocking.
It doesn't tell us all we need to know.
How available/evidence based WAS that 29% milder figure when the data was commissioned. Were they asked to provide data on that basis?
It's not really told us anything to my mind, it IS interesting but more information is needed unless you want to take a bit of an ideological leap in your preferred direction.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-the-media-gets-wrong-about-sage-s-models
two months ago from the same person in the magazine edited by Nelson. What is in the above is consistent with their exchange. The assumption of same severity as delta was clearly within the published results, and talked about on here. Journalists who take a paper they don’t understand and turn “there could be up to X deaths or hospitalisations if Y happens, but with these caveats” into “X DEATHS WILL HAPPEN” is a constant frustration for those of us who do modelling.
Also, any business that “plans for the best” isn’t a business, it’s an ex-business. The same applies to governments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not saying it should be best case scenario only though; no-one is. But it also shouldn’t only be about worst cases and ignoring reasonable outcomes. If the data on omicron is true when saying more transmissible but less fatal then why stick with using delta?
Plus, as I said, if a factor of ten is the best you can come up with then it’s not really much use for me tbh. I understand that it’s extremely complex as it’s about human behaviour but it’s still a factor of ten!
Like I said, if a CFO gave those numbers to his chairman, he wouldn’t be CFO for long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per the article, the alternative is “guessing”. With a model it is clear what the data and assumptions and methodology are.
It is not only about worse case scenarios. That was an assertion by Nelson that has not been corroborated by SAGE nor would it be.
This was the actual response from Graham;
https://mobile.twitter.com/GrahamMedley/status/1472322935658627076
“ Absolutely not true (in response to a suggestion they model worse case scenario asked for by government). We model the scenarios that are most informative to enable Government decisions (and doing nothing is an option in that decision)”
The meltdown from folk like Nelson, who thinks he had a scoop while also pointing out that the same info was there, in an article, from the same person, in his magazine, 2 months ago. The Heed of scoops for those on the Scottish boards
In your analogy about the CFO, what you would more likely have is the CFO giving the rainbows and the CRO giving the more risk adverse side. It is risk management.
I recall the Scottish Indy ref, many on these threads were incredulous about the heroic revenue assumptions based on barrel of oil prices. And rightly so. What I want from scotland is to see what the real downsides can be so a risk based decision can be taken.
And any CEO making a decision based on a best case scenario would be done. Out the door. P45.
Final point. As is mentioned in the article, there are so many variables (behaviour, vaccine uptake, efficacy, emergence of new variants etc) that this modelling really is tough. I’ve a degree of experience in that field but what these guys are doing is fairly cutting edge. The JP Morgan model being referenced, from what I can tell it is no more complex than the SPI-M model. But it does have different assumptions in it, and so produces different answers. It’s why we have spent so long talking about the assumptions in the models, and some are hugely sensitive. In the business world, when we validate or approve models (which I do daily) 40% of the time is on the assumptions, 30% on thd methodology, 20% on the data, 5% on the uses and 5% on the results. I would love it if journalists could engage on the assumptions and methodologies as opposed to sensational headlines on the results. But I appreciate that is an intellectual hurdle many many journalists struggle to get over.
Rant over
“We generally model what we are asked to model. There is a dialogue in which policy teams discuss with the modellers what they need to inform their policy”
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 3 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 3 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 7 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by 8==Divock #SLM 🐟 (U22339)
posted 41 minutes ago
I’ve only just stumbled across these protests in London…
1. What a bunch ofs
2. Why aren’t they thinking about the hypothetical ambulances they’re holding up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
🚨 | NEW: Piers Corbyn;
"We've got to hammer to death those scm, those scm who have decided to go ahead with introducing new fascism."
"If your MP is one of them, go to their offices, and, well, I'd recommend burning them down."
https://t.co/QJ8S0r88v3
🤔
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never ceases to amaze me how this cretin basks in the reflected relevance of his brother.
Honestly think he's only given any attention because people see it as a way to detract from Jeremy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean Jeremy is clearly going to come out and make a firm statement against his brother here
Clearly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And why would he have to do that? If I made a strong statement everytime my brother said something stupid it would be a full time job
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I was an MP and my brother called for hundreds of MPs to be murdered but not me I'd want to make a statement condemning it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's telling them to burn down offices. Not murder anyone.
Can youfekin read?
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 3 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 3 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 7 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by 8==Divock #SLM 🐟 (U22339)
posted 41 minutes ago
I’ve only just stumbled across these protests in London…
1. What a bunch ofs
2. Why aren’t they thinking about the hypothetical ambulances they’re holding up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
🚨 | NEW: Piers Corbyn;
"We've got to hammer to death those scm, those scm who have decided to go ahead with introducing new fascism."
"If your MP is one of them, go to their offices, and, well, I'd recommend burning them down."
https://t.co/QJ8S0r88v3
🤔
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never ceases to amaze me how this cretin basks in the reflected relevance of his brother.
Honestly think he's only given any attention because people see it as a way to detract from Jeremy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean Jeremy is clearly going to come out and make a firm statement against his brother here
Clearly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And why would he have to do that? If I made a strong statement everytime my brother said something stupid it would be a full time job
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I was an MP and my brother called for hundreds of MPs to be murdered but not me I'd want to make a statement condemning it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's telling them to burn down offices. Not murder anyone.
Can youfekin read?
He can read, it's an exaggeration because he's trying to use Piers to discredit Jeremy.
Him being arrested is the correct outcome.
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 7 minutes ago
He can read, it's an exaggeration because he's trying to use Piers to discredit Jeremy.
Him being arrested is the correct outcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. inciting a riot?
Some people seem to be misunderstanding some things here.
They are not purposely making models to spread fear, doom and gloom, or to try predict with certainty. They quite clearly explain there use:
"What we can do is to use models to construct scenarios — 'what ifs' — that can be used by governments to inform their decisions"
They then go on to say that best case scenarios, do not inform decision making: "Decision-makers don’t have to decide if nothing happens"
So if models are being made to inform decisions; and best case scenarios warrant no decisions:
No need for a decision; warrants no model, ∴ no models needed for best case scenarios.
To reiterate: they are producing models to inform policy in particular scenarios. They do not claim their models predict the future.
A astronomer might want to model what happens to the Earth (and how we might respond), it it gets hit (or is going to be) by an asteroid.
Asking them to model the best scenario (missing), for the sake adding the information, says nothing extra.
Models are not 1:1 representations of reality. They have a relationship to it, yes, but are used to compress it to useful information for us.
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 6 minutes ago
Some people seem to be misunderstanding some things here.
They are not purposely making models to spread fear, doom and gloom, or to try predict with certainty. They quite clearly explain there use:
"What we can do is to use models to construct scenarios — 'what ifs' — that can be used by governments to inform their decisions"
They then go on to say that best case scenarios, do not inform decision making: "Decision-makers don’t have to decide if nothing happens"
So if models are being made to inform decisions; and best case scenarios warrant no decisions:
No need for a decision; warrants no model, ∴ no models needed for best case scenarios.
To reiterate: they are producing models to inform policy in particular scenarios. They do not claim their models predict the future.
A astronomer might want to model what happens to the Earth (and how we might respond), it it gets hit (or is going to be) by an asteroid.
Asking them to model the best scenario (missing), for the sake adding the information, says nothing extra.
Models are not 1:1 representations of reality. They have a relationship to it, yes, but are used to compress it to useful information for us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think anyone is misunderstanding anything.
The problem is that the modelling being requested is seemingly not including a better case scenario and therefore, if justification for measures taken is needed, they can refer back to these models.
The problem is that they only modelling what is requested which is where politics is entering science and it shouldn’t.
Listing a best case scenario isn’t telling us nothing, it’s giving a balanced list of possible outcomes, which should be the entire point of modelling.
"The problem is that they only modelling what is requested which is where politics is entering science and it shouldn’t.
Listing a best case scenario isn’t telling us nothing, it’s giving a balanced list of possible outcomes, which should be the entire point of modelling"
Politicians request specific modelling all the time. Perhaps sometimes cynically. But most often they are trying to use it to make decisions.
Like I said, best case scenarios are not needed for political decisions in this situation. Adding information for the sake of balance is no justification really. It says nothing useful to decision making itself.
I think it is pretty remiss to ignore the likelihood of minimal or no restrictions necessary if the variant is milder than Delta in line with reports from RSA.
The fact JP Morgan picked up on it - but scientists don't is also telling.
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 1 minute ago
"The problem is that they only modelling what is requested which is where politics is entering science and it shouldn’t.
Listing a best case scenario isn’t telling us nothing, it’s giving a balanced list of possible outcomes, which should be the entire point of modelling"
Politicians request specific modelling all the time. Perhaps sometimes cynically. But most often they are trying to use it to make decisions.
Like I said, best case scenarios are not needed for political decisions in this situation. Adding information for the sake of balance is no justification really. It says nothing useful to decision making itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it does. Using simplified made up numbers:
Best case - 100 daily deaths
Better case - 150 deaths
Medium - 200
Bad - 400 deaths
Worst - 800 deaths
All of those applied to scenario A, B and C whereby A is do nothing B is masks such and C is bringing back part 1 of the roadmap
Having the results of the best case brings things into context and not having it listed gives the politicians a get out of jail ‘look look the modelling said this, said that so we had to bring in roadmap part one’
As per the Twitter exchange, why the South African data scenario wasn’t included is beyond me. All they would have to include is a fan favourite ‘could’ and everyone would accept it, no?
Probably not, ‘could’ is only acceptable when proving one side.
It’s same with a lot of the socioeconomic reports doing univariate analysis, it’s complete bs.
And as has happened time and time again - the worst case stuff is what will get the headlines.
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 7 minutes ago
He can read, it's an exaggeration because he's trying to use Piers to discredit Jeremy.
Him being arrested is the correct outcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.inciting a riot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He said "hammer them to death" and "burn down their offices"
I can read... Can you?
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 7 minutes ago
He can read, it's an exaggeration because he's trying to use Piers to discredit Jeremy.
Him being arrested is the correct outcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.inciting a riot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He said "hammer them to death" and "burn down their offices"
I can read... Can you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they missed that. It’s probably figurative but it’s a dumb thing to say and there are enough mentally disturbed people in country that might act on such words.
Didn’t people slam Priti Patel for saying much less wrt to solicitors?
Sign in if you want to comment
Politics Thread
Page 2099 of 5839
2100 | 2101 | 2102 | 2103 | 2104
posted on 19/12/21
I am more than happy to accept this is normal modelling behaviour and I am an idiot - half of that is true already but the wider lack of media pick-up on it, even to just explain why it's not an issue is a surprise to me.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
“Has Nadine just been cancelled?”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 19/12/21
Media pick up to Fraser Nelson's tweeted exchange, not my question to BMCL lol
posted on 19/12/21
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-the-media-gets-wrong-about-sage-s-models
two months ago from the same person in the magazine edited by Nelson. What is in the above is consistent with their exchange. The assumption of same severity as delta was clearly within the published results, and talked about on here. Journalists who take a paper they don’t understand and turn “there could be up to X deaths or hospitalisations if Y happens, but with these caveats” into “X DEATHS WILL HAPPEN” is a constant frustration for those of us who do modelling.
Also, any business that “plans for the best” isn’t a business, it’s an ex-business. The same applies to governments.
posted on 19/12/21
As a related note, I've just finished reading Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction by Dan Gardiner. Decent read. It's more about the people than the models.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 45 seconds ago
As a related note, I've just finished reading Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction by Dan Gardiner. Decent read. It's more about the people than the models.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👍 cheers A1, will aim to take a look. (
posted on 19/12/21
Frost has defo resigned before Boris sells him out over the EU
posted on 19/12/21
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-the-media-gets-wrong-about-sage-s-models
two months ago from the same person in the magazine edited by Nelson. What is in the above is consistent with their exchange. The assumption of same severity as delta was clearly within the published results, and talked about on here. Journalists who take a paper they don’t understand and turn “there could be up to X deaths or hospitalisations if Y happens, but with these caveats” into “X DEATHS WILL HAPPEN” is a constant frustration for those of us who do modelling.
Also, any business that “plans for the best” isn’t a business, it’s an ex-business. The same applies to governments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not saying it should be best case scenario only though; no-one is. But it also shouldn’t only be about worst cases and ignoring reasonable outcomes. If the data on omicron is true when saying more transmissible but less fatal then why stick with using delta?
Plus, as I said, if a factor of ten is the best you can come up with then it’s not really much use for me tbh. I understand that it’s extremely complex as it’s about human behaviour but it’s still a factor of ten!
Like I said, if a CFO gave those numbers to his chairman, he wouldn’t be CFO for long.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-the-media-gets-wrong-about-sage-s-models
two months ago from the same person in the magazine edited by Nelson. What is in the above is consistent with their exchange. The assumption of same severity as delta was clearly within the published results, and talked about on here. Journalists who take a paper they don’t understand and turn “there could be up to X deaths or hospitalisations if Y happens, but with these caveats” into “X DEATHS WILL HAPPEN” is a constant frustration for those of us who do modelling.
Also, any business that “plans for the best” isn’t a business, it’s an ex-business. The same applies to governments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not saying it should be best case scenario only though; no-one is. But it also shouldn’t only be about worst cases and ignoring reasonable outcomes. If the data on omicron is true when saying more transmissible but less fatal then why stick with using delta?
Plus, as I said, if a factor of ten is the best you can come up with then it’s not really much use for me tbh. I understand that it’s extremely complex as it’s about human behaviour but it’s still a factor of ten!
Like I said, if a CFO gave those numbers to his chairman, he wouldn’t be CFO for long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How available/reliable was evidence on the severity of Omicron when these reports were commissioned?
2. I think finances are a lot more predictable than public health metrics when can include literally hundreds of different scenarios with regards to measures, vaccination rates, booster take up, mortality, a sliding scale with regards to treatment for sufferers as healthcare becomes overwhelmed.
Etc etc etc.
posted on 19/12/21
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7447267/
This was an interesting read. It’s a nightmare job, forecasting is nigh on impossible. I have no issue with that.
My issue is when the assumptions used are omitting certain factors, seemingly deliberately from that Twitter exchange.
Honestly that Twitter exchanges tells you all you need to know…shocking.
posted on 19/12/21
*exchange
posted on 19/12/21
It doesn't tell us all we need to know.
How available/evidence based WAS that 29% milder figure when the data was commissioned. Were they asked to provide data on that basis?
It's not really told us anything to my mind, it IS interesting but more information is needed unless you want to take a bit of an ideological leap in your preferred direction.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-the-media-gets-wrong-about-sage-s-models
two months ago from the same person in the magazine edited by Nelson. What is in the above is consistent with their exchange. The assumption of same severity as delta was clearly within the published results, and talked about on here. Journalists who take a paper they don’t understand and turn “there could be up to X deaths or hospitalisations if Y happens, but with these caveats” into “X DEATHS WILL HAPPEN” is a constant frustration for those of us who do modelling.
Also, any business that “plans for the best” isn’t a business, it’s an ex-business. The same applies to governments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not saying it should be best case scenario only though; no-one is. But it also shouldn’t only be about worst cases and ignoring reasonable outcomes. If the data on omicron is true when saying more transmissible but less fatal then why stick with using delta?
Plus, as I said, if a factor of ten is the best you can come up with then it’s not really much use for me tbh. I understand that it’s extremely complex as it’s about human behaviour but it’s still a factor of ten!
Like I said, if a CFO gave those numbers to his chairman, he wouldn’t be CFO for long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per the article, the alternative is “guessing”. With a model it is clear what the data and assumptions and methodology are.
It is not only about worse case scenarios. That was an assertion by Nelson that has not been corroborated by SAGE nor would it be.
This was the actual response from Graham;
https://mobile.twitter.com/GrahamMedley/status/1472322935658627076
“ Absolutely not true (in response to a suggestion they model worse case scenario asked for by government). We model the scenarios that are most informative to enable Government decisions (and doing nothing is an option in that decision)”
The meltdown from folk like Nelson, who thinks he had a scoop while also pointing out that the same info was there, in an article, from the same person, in his magazine, 2 months ago. The Heed of scoops for those on the Scottish boards
In your analogy about the CFO, what you would more likely have is the CFO giving the rainbows and the CRO giving the more risk adverse side. It is risk management.
I recall the Scottish Indy ref, many on these threads were incredulous about the heroic revenue assumptions based on barrel of oil prices. And rightly so. What I want from scotland is to see what the real downsides can be so a risk based decision can be taken.
And any CEO making a decision based on a best case scenario would be done. Out the door. P45.
Final point. As is mentioned in the article, there are so many variables (behaviour, vaccine uptake, efficacy, emergence of new variants etc) that this modelling really is tough. I’ve a degree of experience in that field but what these guys are doing is fairly cutting edge. The JP Morgan model being referenced, from what I can tell it is no more complex than the SPI-M model. But it does have different assumptions in it, and so produces different answers. It’s why we have spent so long talking about the assumptions in the models, and some are hugely sensitive. In the business world, when we validate or approve models (which I do daily) 40% of the time is on the assumptions, 30% on thd methodology, 20% on the data, 5% on the uses and 5% on the results. I would love it if journalists could engage on the assumptions and methodologies as opposed to sensational headlines on the results. But I appreciate that is an intellectual hurdle many many journalists struggle to get over.
Rant over
posted on 19/12/21
“We generally model what we are asked to model. There is a dialogue in which policy teams discuss with the modellers what they need to inform their policy”
posted on 19/12/21
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 3 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 3 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 7 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by 8==Divock #SLM 🐟 (U22339)
posted 41 minutes ago
I’ve only just stumbled across these protests in London…
1. What a bunch ofs
2. Why aren’t they thinking about the hypothetical ambulances they’re holding up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
🚨 | NEW: Piers Corbyn;
"We've got to hammer to death those scm, those scm who have decided to go ahead with introducing new fascism."
"If your MP is one of them, go to their offices, and, well, I'd recommend burning them down."
https://t.co/QJ8S0r88v3
🤔
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never ceases to amaze me how this cretin basks in the reflected relevance of his brother.
Honestly think he's only given any attention because people see it as a way to detract from Jeremy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean Jeremy is clearly going to come out and make a firm statement against his brother here
Clearly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And why would he have to do that? If I made a strong statement everytime my brother said something stupid it would be a full time job
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I was an MP and my brother called for hundreds of MPs to be murdered but not me I'd want to make a statement condemning it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's telling them to burn down offices. Not murder anyone.
Can youfekin read?
posted on 19/12/21
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 3 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 3 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 7 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by 8==Divock #SLM 🐟 (U22339)
posted 41 minutes ago
I’ve only just stumbled across these protests in London…
1. What a bunch ofs
2. Why aren’t they thinking about the hypothetical ambulances they’re holding up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
🚨 | NEW: Piers Corbyn;
"We've got to hammer to death those scm, those scm who have decided to go ahead with introducing new fascism."
"If your MP is one of them, go to their offices, and, well, I'd recommend burning them down."
https://t.co/QJ8S0r88v3
🤔
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never ceases to amaze me how this cretin basks in the reflected relevance of his brother.
Honestly think he's only given any attention because people see it as a way to detract from Jeremy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean Jeremy is clearly going to come out and make a firm statement against his brother here
Clearly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And why would he have to do that? If I made a strong statement everytime my brother said something stupid it would be a full time job
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I was an MP and my brother called for hundreds of MPs to be murdered but not me I'd want to make a statement condemning it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's telling them to burn down offices. Not murder anyone.
Can youfekin read?
posted on 19/12/21
He can read, it's an exaggeration because he's trying to use Piers to discredit Jeremy.
Him being arrested is the correct outcome.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 7 minutes ago
He can read, it's an exaggeration because he's trying to use Piers to discredit Jeremy.
Him being arrested is the correct outcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. inciting a riot?
posted on 19/12/21
Some people seem to be misunderstanding some things here.
They are not purposely making models to spread fear, doom and gloom, or to try predict with certainty. They quite clearly explain there use:
"What we can do is to use models to construct scenarios — 'what ifs' — that can be used by governments to inform their decisions"
They then go on to say that best case scenarios, do not inform decision making: "Decision-makers don’t have to decide if nothing happens"
So if models are being made to inform decisions; and best case scenarios warrant no decisions:
No need for a decision; warrants no model, ∴ no models needed for best case scenarios.
To reiterate: they are producing models to inform policy in particular scenarios. They do not claim their models predict the future.
A astronomer might want to model what happens to the Earth (and how we might respond), it it gets hit (or is going to be) by an asteroid.
Asking them to model the best scenario (missing), for the sake adding the information, says nothing extra.
Models are not 1:1 representations of reality. They have a relationship to it, yes, but are used to compress it to useful information for us.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 6 minutes ago
Some people seem to be misunderstanding some things here.
They are not purposely making models to spread fear, doom and gloom, or to try predict with certainty. They quite clearly explain there use:
"What we can do is to use models to construct scenarios — 'what ifs' — that can be used by governments to inform their decisions"
They then go on to say that best case scenarios, do not inform decision making: "Decision-makers don’t have to decide if nothing happens"
So if models are being made to inform decisions; and best case scenarios warrant no decisions:
No need for a decision; warrants no model, ∴ no models needed for best case scenarios.
To reiterate: they are producing models to inform policy in particular scenarios. They do not claim their models predict the future.
A astronomer might want to model what happens to the Earth (and how we might respond), it it gets hit (or is going to be) by an asteroid.
Asking them to model the best scenario (missing), for the sake adding the information, says nothing extra.
Models are not 1:1 representations of reality. They have a relationship to it, yes, but are used to compress it to useful information for us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think anyone is misunderstanding anything.
The problem is that the modelling being requested is seemingly not including a better case scenario and therefore, if justification for measures taken is needed, they can refer back to these models.
The problem is that they only modelling what is requested which is where politics is entering science and it shouldn’t.
Listing a best case scenario isn’t telling us nothing, it’s giving a balanced list of possible outcomes, which should be the entire point of modelling.
posted on 19/12/21
"The problem is that they only modelling what is requested which is where politics is entering science and it shouldn’t.
Listing a best case scenario isn’t telling us nothing, it’s giving a balanced list of possible outcomes, which should be the entire point of modelling"
Politicians request specific modelling all the time. Perhaps sometimes cynically. But most often they are trying to use it to make decisions.
Like I said, best case scenarios are not needed for political decisions in this situation. Adding information for the sake of balance is no justification really. It says nothing useful to decision making itself.
posted on 19/12/21
I think it is pretty remiss to ignore the likelihood of minimal or no restrictions necessary if the variant is milder than Delta in line with reports from RSA.
The fact JP Morgan picked up on it - but scientists don't is also telling.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 1 minute ago
"The problem is that they only modelling what is requested which is where politics is entering science and it shouldn’t.
Listing a best case scenario isn’t telling us nothing, it’s giving a balanced list of possible outcomes, which should be the entire point of modelling"
Politicians request specific modelling all the time. Perhaps sometimes cynically. But most often they are trying to use it to make decisions.
Like I said, best case scenarios are not needed for political decisions in this situation. Adding information for the sake of balance is no justification really. It says nothing useful to decision making itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it does. Using simplified made up numbers:
Best case - 100 daily deaths
Better case - 150 deaths
Medium - 200
Bad - 400 deaths
Worst - 800 deaths
All of those applied to scenario A, B and C whereby A is do nothing B is masks such and C is bringing back part 1 of the roadmap
Having the results of the best case brings things into context and not having it listed gives the politicians a get out of jail ‘look look the modelling said this, said that so we had to bring in roadmap part one’
As per the Twitter exchange, why the South African data scenario wasn’t included is beyond me. All they would have to include is a fan favourite ‘could’ and everyone would accept it, no?
Probably not, ‘could’ is only acceptable when proving one side.
It’s same with a lot of the socioeconomic reports doing univariate analysis, it’s complete bs.
And as has happened time and time again - the worst case stuff is what will get the headlines.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 7 minutes ago
He can read, it's an exaggeration because he's trying to use Piers to discredit Jeremy.
Him being arrested is the correct outcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.inciting a riot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He said "hammer them to death" and "burn down their offices"
I can read... Can you?
posted on 19/12/21
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 38 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 7 minutes ago
He can read, it's an exaggeration because he's trying to use Piers to discredit Jeremy.
Him being arrested is the correct outcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.inciting a riot?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He said "hammer them to death" and "burn down their offices"
I can read... Can you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they missed that. It’s probably figurative but it’s a dumb thing to say and there are enough mentally disturbed people in country that might act on such words.
Didn’t people slam Priti Patel for saying much less wrt to solicitors?
Page 2099 of 5839
2100 | 2101 | 2102 | 2103 | 2104