It's ambiguous and that's why they've only charged have him with inciting arson which is unequivocal
Didn't share it as an attack on Jeremy Corbyn and don't think it reflects in him at all. Though like I said before if I was an MP and my brother said to murder most MPs (but not me or my cohort) I'd come out against it
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 3 minutes ago
It's ambiguous and that's why they've only charged have him with inciting arson which is unequivocal
Didn't share it as an attack on Jeremy Corbyn and don't think it reflects in him at all. Though like I said before if I was an MP and my brother said to murder most MPs (but not me or my cohort) I'd come out against it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I think with that level of comment, he should be denounced and agree it has nothing to do with Jeremy, no idea why Jeremy was even brought into this…weird
Because Insert said people would and then I said I think Corbyn will come out against his brother and it descended from there 🤪
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 2 hours, 43 minutes ago
Frost has defo resigned before Boris sells him out over the EU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
He probably resigned because he was a terrible diplomat, who chose an aggressive confrontational approach to diplomacy, when pragmatism was required.
His infatuation with the ECJ was not shared by any business groups here. Nor a concern ever raised.
Liz Truss could be next up to bat.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about an hour ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The context for these models are scenarios which require political decisions. That's pretty fair I would say.
Do you believe the government requires models for scenarios, where they do not need to make decisions, or enact policy?
Does it really provide context to decision making? Models of scenarios where nothing needs to happen, are not really useful to the government.
Going back to my example - it would like asking for a model of when the astroid does not hit earth. Does that provide context?
I mean that's not to say you can't make reports on the likelihood. That's certainly useful.
But the government still needs to make plans on different scenarios. It's useful and relevant information to mitigating risks.
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about an hour ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The context for these models are scenarios which require political decisions. That's pretty fair I would say.
Do you believe the government requires models for scenarios, where they do not need to make decisions, or enact policy?
Does it really provide context to decision making? Models of scenarios where nothing needs to happen, are not really useful to the government.
Going back to my example - it would like asking for a model of when the astroid does not hit earth. Does that provide context?
I mean that's not to say you can't make reports on the likelihood. That's certainly useful.
But the government still needs to make plans on different scenarios. It's useful and relevant information to mitigating risks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
11,279,428
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 2 seconds ago
Thanks for that update!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Son of a….google helped you dismantle my point
Your asteroid analogy doesn’t work as it’s binary - either the asteroid hits or it doesn’t.
If no change results in 1,000,000,000 deaths then we know that
If changes result in there being 1,000,000 deaths then we know the benefit and can now weigh up against the costs ie. Lockdowns, economic mental health etc
If no changes result in 1,100,000 deaths
And changes is 1,000,000 then all of a sudden that equation to work through is somewhat different.
It’s a really, really poor excuse for not modelling every reasonable outcome. The assumption of omicron being as deadly as delta is a huge deal and as the Twitter exchange showed, that single change leads to a drastically different outcome with regards to further restrictions. But it’s ok the government tell them what to model 👌🏻
I am glad I established a whole day's worth of arguments.
comment by NPE - Finding Timo (U22712)
posted 1 minute ago
I am glad I established a whole day's worth of arguments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are the number one
The loneliest number
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 2 seconds ago
Thanks for that update!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Son of a….google helped you dismantle my point
Your asteroid analogy doesn’t work as it’s binary - either the asteroid hits or it doesn’t.
If no change results in 1,000,000,000 deaths then we know that
If changes result in there being 1,000,000 deaths then we know the benefit and can now weigh up against the costs ie. Lockdowns, economic mental health etc
If no changes result in 1,100,000 deaths
And changes is 1,000,000 then all of a sudden that equation to work through is somewhat different.
It’s a really, really poor excuse for not modelling every reasonable outcome. The assumption of omicron being as deadly as delta is a huge deal and as the Twitter exchange showed, that single change leads to a drastically different outcome with regards to further restrictions. But it’s ok the government tell them what to model 👌🏻
----------------------------------------------------------------------
f we are talking about a physical body colliding with the earth, then the exact comparison would be: at what threshold of risks, would different decisions need to be made.
In our astroid example - what responses would be needed to mitigate various magnitudes of risks, when physical bodies collide with earth?
Obviously, at times we do not need to enact political decisions to these problems. We model though the ones which might need to enact policy for, as they are useful for us.
Modelling impacts of risks below that threshold of political decision process, is not particularly useful.
Extreme example: a falling rock to earth does not add context to an incoming astroid lol!
We can ask questions about where this threshold for decisions sit.
But we might often look at severe instances of threat, so that we can plan responses - this is the same for both a pandemic and an astroid.
Modelling every single outcome is not possible! We make models for what is useful for us. If we are making decisions, its therefore useful for us to model things which give consequence to these decisions.
I have done modelling with things like MATLAB - you make exclusions on certain variables to find interesting and useful things.
Models are there to compares data and information down to something useful. They are not there to explain or predict reality.
There would be no purpose ever for a model which resembles reality exactly.
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 2 minutes ago
Models are there to compares data and information down to something useful. They are not there to explain or predict reality.
There would be no purpose ever for a model which resembles reality exactly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain is the wrong word! They are obviously made to do just that!
Black Hawk - Chelsea have gone from winning nearly every game to 2 wins in 8 since you came back.
Coincidence?
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 2 seconds ago
Models are there to compares data and information down to something useful. They are not there to explain or predict reality.
There would be no purpose ever for a model which resembles reality exactly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this is reality exactly but factoring in omicron data is hardly just modelling reality. It’s a very reasonable thing to do. I’m not expecting Dr Strange level of reality exploring here either but just asking for and therefore just modelling, therefore just reporting: bad, worse and worst is not helpful in the slightest.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 2 seconds ago
Models are there to compares data and information down to something useful. They are not there to explain or predict reality.
There would be no purpose ever for a model which resembles reality exactly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this is reality exactly but factoring in omicron data is hardly just modelling reality. It’s a very reasonable thing to do. I’m not expecting Dr Strange level of reality exploring here either but just asking for and therefore just modelling, therefore just reporting: bad, worse and worst is not helpful in the slightest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it is useful!!
We are talking about risks which would trigger responses! Thats the purpose of risk analysis and response.
Anything below that certain threshold of event, is just noise really. It's exactly why the guy describes it as 'nothing happening'.
We can model every variable and every situation - this for me would not be useful! And runs against the reasons we make these kinds of models in first place.
We run them against certain principles. And we compress information so it can hold value. It does not pretend to be exact or predict things perfectly, for how they are or will be. They are done in ways which might useful to us and they contain information.
And thats not to say SAGE or these scientists are right, or have been accurate with their findings.
A lot of it is just so incredibly hard to predict. But its still useful look at scenarios.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 2 seconds ago
Models are there to compares data and information down to something useful. They are not there to explain or predict reality.
There would be no purpose ever for a model which resembles reality exactly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this is reality exactly but factoring in omicron data is hardly just modelling reality. It’s a very reasonable thing to do. I’m not expecting Dr Strange level of reality exploring here either but just asking for and therefore just modelling, therefore just reporting: bad, worse and worst is not helpful in the slightest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually forgot about the game today!
Still really disappointed. I should always avoid December, as each year it is rubbish!
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 2 seconds ago
Models are there to compares data and information down to something useful. They are not there to explain or predict reality.
There would be no purpose ever for a model which resembles reality exactly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this is reality exactly but factoring in omicron data is hardly just modelling reality. It’s a very reasonable thing to do. I’m not expecting Dr Strange level of reality exploring here either but just asking for and therefore just modelling, therefore just reporting: bad, worse and worst is not helpful in the slightest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it is useful!!
We are talking about risks which would trigger responses! Thats the purpose of risk analysis and response.
Anything below that certain threshold of event, is just noise really. It's exactly why the guy describes it as 'nothing happening'.
We can model every variable and every situation - this for me would not be useful! And runs against the reasons we make these kinds of models in first place.
We run them against certain principles. And we compress information so it can hold value. It does not pretend to be exact or predict things perfectly, for how they are or will be. They are done in ways which might useful to us and they contain information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But I’m not asking for every permutation, just a few more that can help make decisions.
Bad, worse and worst is not enough for mass societal controlling decisions.
Good, fair, fair/bad, worse & worst - is that too much to ask of my government who want to limit our freedoms in ways that greatly affect us negatively? It’s a poor, poor cop out to label it ‘nothing happening’ because it’s not nothing, it’s still cases, hospitalisations and deaths but perhaps the public want to see a column using omicron data from SA? But the government aren’t asking them for that, are they?
Honestly I really don’t see why I’m debating this.
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
And thats not to say SAGE or these scientists are right, or have been accurate with their findings.
A lot of it is just so incredibly hard to predict. But its still useful look at scenarios.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But mate, these models aren’t just being looked at, are they?! They are very much determining the government’s course of action which is why I find their involvement in deciding what SAGE model to be utterly disgraceful.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
And thats not to say SAGE or these scientists are right, or have been accurate with their findings.
A lot of it is just so incredibly hard to predict. But its still useful look at scenarios.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But mate, these models aren’t just being looked at, are they?! They are very much determining the government’s course of action which is why I find their involvement in deciding what SAGE model to be utterly disgraceful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Latest update from SPI-M-O;
“There currently remains no strong evidence that Omicron infections are either more or less severe than Delta infections.”
That was on 15 December. As and when strong evidence emerges around the nature of omicron impact on hospitalisations then this will be reflected within scenario modelling.
Shout-out to BH, agree with all your posts today on this, and articulating my frustration with the approach from Nelson and his ilk better than I ever could
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
And thats not to say SAGE or these scientists are right, or have been accurate with their findings.
A lot of it is just so incredibly hard to predict. But its still useful look at scenarios.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But mate, these models aren’t just being looked at, are they?! They are very much determining the government’s course of action which is why I find their involvement in deciding what SAGE model to be utterly disgraceful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
possibly but if the situation was reversed and the models mirrored said the everything was and the politicians were being careful some would be on here screaming at them to look at the modelling.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
And thats not to say SAGE or these scientists are right, or have been accurate with their findings.
A lot of it is just so incredibly hard to predict. But its still useful look at scenarios.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But mate, these models aren’t just being looked at, are they?! They are very much determining the government’s course of action which is why I find their involvement in deciding what SAGE model to be utterly disgraceful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not disgracful 😂
I'm not in favour of further lockdowns or restrictions at all, but I understand that this scoop regarding SAGE, is nothing more than a general misunderstanding of models.
And of course models are made to enact something! Providing information on scenarios which do not enact policy, would only provide something to look at it. Nothing really useful would be added!
Government asking for models on extreme scenarios, is not something disgracful! Its completely logical. That's the bloody purpose of them!! 😂
Just to be clear I’m not limping posters on here in with Nelson. Folk like satters are approaching with curiosity and an attempt to understand modelling.
Sign in if you want to comment
Politics Thread
Page 2100 of 6170
2101 | 2102 | 2103 | 2104 | 2105
posted on 19/12/21
It's ambiguous and that's why they've only charged have him with inciting arson which is unequivocal
Didn't share it as an attack on Jeremy Corbyn and don't think it reflects in him at all. Though like I said before if I was an MP and my brother said to murder most MPs (but not me or my cohort) I'd come out against it
posted on 19/12/21
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 3 minutes ago
It's ambiguous and that's why they've only charged have him with inciting arson which is unequivocal
Didn't share it as an attack on Jeremy Corbyn and don't think it reflects in him at all. Though like I said before if I was an MP and my brother said to murder most MPs (but not me or my cohort) I'd come out against it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I think with that level of comment, he should be denounced and agree it has nothing to do with Jeremy, no idea why Jeremy was even brought into this…weird
posted on 19/12/21
Because Insert said people would and then I said I think Corbyn will come out against his brother and it descended from there 🤪
posted on 19/12/21
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 2 hours, 43 minutes ago
Frost has defo resigned before Boris sells him out over the EU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
He probably resigned because he was a terrible diplomat, who chose an aggressive confrontational approach to diplomacy, when pragmatism was required.
His infatuation with the ECJ was not shared by any business groups here. Nor a concern ever raised.
Liz Truss could be next up to bat.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about an hour ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The context for these models are scenarios which require political decisions. That's pretty fair I would say.
Do you believe the government requires models for scenarios, where they do not need to make decisions, or enact policy?
Does it really provide context to decision making? Models of scenarios where nothing needs to happen, are not really useful to the government.
Going back to my example - it would like asking for a model of when the astroid does not hit earth. Does that provide context?
I mean that's not to say you can't make reports on the likelihood. That's certainly useful.
But the government still needs to make plans on different scenarios. It's useful and relevant information to mitigating risks.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about an hour ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The context for these models are scenarios which require political decisions. That's pretty fair I would say.
Do you believe the government requires models for scenarios, where they do not need to make decisions, or enact policy?
Does it really provide context to decision making? Models of scenarios where nothing needs to happen, are not really useful to the government.
Going back to my example - it would like asking for a model of when the astroid does not hit earth. Does that provide context?
I mean that's not to say you can't make reports on the likelihood. That's certainly useful.
But the government still needs to make plans on different scenarios. It's useful and relevant information to mitigating risks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
11,279,428
posted on 19/12/21
Thanks for that update!
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 2 seconds ago
Thanks for that update!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Son of a….google helped you dismantle my point
Your asteroid analogy doesn’t work as it’s binary - either the asteroid hits or it doesn’t.
If no change results in 1,000,000,000 deaths then we know that
If changes result in there being 1,000,000 deaths then we know the benefit and can now weigh up against the costs ie. Lockdowns, economic mental health etc
If no changes result in 1,100,000 deaths
And changes is 1,000,000 then all of a sudden that equation to work through is somewhat different.
It’s a really, really poor excuse for not modelling every reasonable outcome. The assumption of omicron being as deadly as delta is a huge deal and as the Twitter exchange showed, that single change leads to a drastically different outcome with regards to further restrictions. But it’s ok the government tell them what to model 👌🏻
posted on 19/12/21
I am glad I established a whole day's worth of arguments.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by NPE - Finding Timo (U22712)
posted 1 minute ago
I am glad I established a whole day's worth of arguments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are the number one
The loneliest number
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 2 seconds ago
Thanks for that update!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Son of a….google helped you dismantle my point
Your asteroid analogy doesn’t work as it’s binary - either the asteroid hits or it doesn’t.
If no change results in 1,000,000,000 deaths then we know that
If changes result in there being 1,000,000 deaths then we know the benefit and can now weigh up against the costs ie. Lockdowns, economic mental health etc
If no changes result in 1,100,000 deaths
And changes is 1,000,000 then all of a sudden that equation to work through is somewhat different.
It’s a really, really poor excuse for not modelling every reasonable outcome. The assumption of omicron being as deadly as delta is a huge deal and as the Twitter exchange showed, that single change leads to a drastically different outcome with regards to further restrictions. But it’s ok the government tell them what to model 👌🏻
----------------------------------------------------------------------
f we are talking about a physical body colliding with the earth, then the exact comparison would be: at what threshold of risks, would different decisions need to be made.
In our astroid example - what responses would be needed to mitigate various magnitudes of risks, when physical bodies collide with earth?
Obviously, at times we do not need to enact political decisions to these problems. We model though the ones which might need to enact policy for, as they are useful for us.
Modelling impacts of risks below that threshold of political decision process, is not particularly useful.
Extreme example: a falling rock to earth does not add context to an incoming astroid lol!
We can ask questions about where this threshold for decisions sit.
But we might often look at severe instances of threat, so that we can plan responses - this is the same for both a pandemic and an astroid.
Modelling every single outcome is not possible! We make models for what is useful for us. If we are making decisions, its therefore useful for us to model things which give consequence to these decisions.
I have done modelling with things like MATLAB - you make exclusions on certain variables to find interesting and useful things.
posted on 19/12/21
Models are there to compares data and information down to something useful. They are not there to explain or predict reality.
There would be no purpose ever for a model which resembles reality exactly.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 2 minutes ago
Models are there to compares data and information down to something useful. They are not there to explain or predict reality.
There would be no purpose ever for a model which resembles reality exactly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain is the wrong word! They are obviously made to do just that!
posted on 19/12/21
Black Hawk - Chelsea have gone from winning nearly every game to 2 wins in 8 since you came back.
Coincidence?
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 2 seconds ago
Models are there to compares data and information down to something useful. They are not there to explain or predict reality.
There would be no purpose ever for a model which resembles reality exactly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this is reality exactly but factoring in omicron data is hardly just modelling reality. It’s a very reasonable thing to do. I’m not expecting Dr Strange level of reality exploring here either but just asking for and therefore just modelling, therefore just reporting: bad, worse and worst is not helpful in the slightest.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 2 seconds ago
Models are there to compares data and information down to something useful. They are not there to explain or predict reality.
There would be no purpose ever for a model which resembles reality exactly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this is reality exactly but factoring in omicron data is hardly just modelling reality. It’s a very reasonable thing to do. I’m not expecting Dr Strange level of reality exploring here either but just asking for and therefore just modelling, therefore just reporting: bad, worse and worst is not helpful in the slightest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it is useful!!
We are talking about risks which would trigger responses! Thats the purpose of risk analysis and response.
Anything below that certain threshold of event, is just noise really. It's exactly why the guy describes it as 'nothing happening'.
We can model every variable and every situation - this for me would not be useful! And runs against the reasons we make these kinds of models in first place.
We run them against certain principles. And we compress information so it can hold value. It does not pretend to be exact or predict things perfectly, for how they are or will be. They are done in ways which might useful to us and they contain information.
posted on 19/12/21
And thats not to say SAGE or these scientists are right, or have been accurate with their findings.
A lot of it is just so incredibly hard to predict. But its still useful look at scenarios.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 2 seconds ago
Models are there to compares data and information down to something useful. They are not there to explain or predict reality.
There would be no purpose ever for a model which resembles reality exactly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this is reality exactly but factoring in omicron data is hardly just modelling reality. It’s a very reasonable thing to do. I’m not expecting Dr Strange level of reality exploring here either but just asking for and therefore just modelling, therefore just reporting: bad, worse and worst is not helpful in the slightest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually forgot about the game today!
Still really disappointed. I should always avoid December, as each year it is rubbish!
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 2 seconds ago
Models are there to compares data and information down to something useful. They are not there to explain or predict reality.
There would be no purpose ever for a model which resembles reality exactly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this is reality exactly but factoring in omicron data is hardly just modelling reality. It’s a very reasonable thing to do. I’m not expecting Dr Strange level of reality exploring here either but just asking for and therefore just modelling, therefore just reporting: bad, worse and worst is not helpful in the slightest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it is useful!!
We are talking about risks which would trigger responses! Thats the purpose of risk analysis and response.
Anything below that certain threshold of event, is just noise really. It's exactly why the guy describes it as 'nothing happening'.
We can model every variable and every situation - this for me would not be useful! And runs against the reasons we make these kinds of models in first place.
We run them against certain principles. And we compress information so it can hold value. It does not pretend to be exact or predict things perfectly, for how they are or will be. They are done in ways which might useful to us and they contain information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But I’m not asking for every permutation, just a few more that can help make decisions.
Bad, worse and worst is not enough for mass societal controlling decisions.
Good, fair, fair/bad, worse & worst - is that too much to ask of my government who want to limit our freedoms in ways that greatly affect us negatively? It’s a poor, poor cop out to label it ‘nothing happening’ because it’s not nothing, it’s still cases, hospitalisations and deaths but perhaps the public want to see a column using omicron data from SA? But the government aren’t asking them for that, are they?
Honestly I really don’t see why I’m debating this.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
And thats not to say SAGE or these scientists are right, or have been accurate with their findings.
A lot of it is just so incredibly hard to predict. But its still useful look at scenarios.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But mate, these models aren’t just being looked at, are they?! They are very much determining the government’s course of action which is why I find their involvement in deciding what SAGE model to be utterly disgraceful.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
And thats not to say SAGE or these scientists are right, or have been accurate with their findings.
A lot of it is just so incredibly hard to predict. But its still useful look at scenarios.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But mate, these models aren’t just being looked at, are they?! They are very much determining the government’s course of action which is why I find their involvement in deciding what SAGE model to be utterly disgraceful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Latest update from SPI-M-O;
“There currently remains no strong evidence that Omicron infections are either more or less severe than Delta infections.”
That was on 15 December. As and when strong evidence emerges around the nature of omicron impact on hospitalisations then this will be reflected within scenario modelling.
Shout-out to BH, agree with all your posts today on this, and articulating my frustration with the approach from Nelson and his ilk better than I ever could
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
And thats not to say SAGE or these scientists are right, or have been accurate with their findings.
A lot of it is just so incredibly hard to predict. But its still useful look at scenarios.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But mate, these models aren’t just being looked at, are they?! They are very much determining the government’s course of action which is why I find their involvement in deciding what SAGE model to be utterly disgraceful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
possibly but if the situation was reversed and the models mirrored said the everything was and the politicians were being careful some would be on here screaming at them to look at the modelling.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
And thats not to say SAGE or these scientists are right, or have been accurate with their findings.
A lot of it is just so incredibly hard to predict. But its still useful look at scenarios.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But mate, these models aren’t just being looked at, are they?! They are very much determining the government’s course of action which is why I find their involvement in deciding what SAGE model to be utterly disgraceful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not disgracful 😂
I'm not in favour of further lockdowns or restrictions at all, but I understand that this scoop regarding SAGE, is nothing more than a general misunderstanding of models.
And of course models are made to enact something! Providing information on scenarios which do not enact policy, would only provide something to look at it. Nothing really useful would be added!
Government asking for models on extreme scenarios, is not something disgracful! Its completely logical. That's the bloody purpose of them!! 😂
posted on 19/12/21
Just to be clear I’m not limping posters on here in with Nelson. Folk like satters are approaching with curiosity and an attempt to understand modelling.
posted on 19/12/21
*lumping
Page 2100 of 6170
2101 | 2102 | 2103 | 2104 | 2105