comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
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!! 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the government asked for modelling with assumptions that painted a positive picture with a view to removing all restrictions then you’d be ok with it?
Personally, I don’t think the government should have any involvement and the modelling should present a much more balanced picture than the 15 December release does ie. Including a column using the SA omicron data.
I guess there is a difference between asking for scenario analysis and specifying the assumptions within the model. As I understand it we’re looking at the former happening.
Oh fack, Truss has replaced Frost
comment by Amado Carrillo Fuentes (U11781)
posted 2 minutes ago
Oh fack, Truss has replaced Frost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂😂 trolling the populace now.
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 40 seconds ago
I guess there is a difference between asking for scenario analysis and specifying the assumptions within the model. As I understand it we’re looking at the former happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is the ONLY way it is used and requested then ok, sure.
But the direct quote was “ 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.”
If he said ‘we specifically modelled this on this occasion because we were asked to and we didn’t include the SA data because it was too early’ or something along those lines then again no problem. But he didn’t say that.
As I said earlier, this is one of the most difficult tasks so they have my sympathies and I’m not here to criticise being wrong but the assumptions used ‘generally’ should be the closest to reality as possible and right now that would include the SA data (in my non-expert opinion)
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 40 seconds ago
I guess there is a difference between asking for scenario analysis and specifying the assumptions within the model. As I understand it we’re looking at the former happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is the ONLY way it is used and requested then ok, sure.
But the direct quote was “ 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.”
If he said ‘we specifically modelled this on this occasion because we were asked to and we didn’t include the SA data because it was too early’ or something along those lines then again no problem. But he didn’t say that.
As I said earlier, this is one of the most difficult tasks so they have my sympathies and I’m not here to criticise being wrong but the assumptions used ‘generally’ should be the closest to reality as possible and right now that would include the SA data (in my non-expert opinion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I can discern the case number data, as a leading indicator, was used. Latent data, such as hospitalisations, not yet, but as above I expect and it is alluded to that once strong evidence on the impact of hospitalisations emerges then that will be included.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
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!! 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the government asked for modelling with assumptions that painted a positive picture with a view to removing all restrictions then you’d be ok with it?
Personally, I don’t think the government should have any involvement and the modelling should present a much more balanced picture than the 15 December release does ie. Including a column using the SA omicron data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's not at all what they are asking!!
And anyway it would be very strange for asking models on risk, which include optimistic information. That's not the point of them. And yes, I think it would be weird if a government wanted examples of only non-event scenarios. As most sensible governments try plan for when things get worse - they don't need to plan about mitigating good impacts.
Nor do we typically need to prepare for non-events lol.
You might think it provides balance - I think it says very little about hypothetical extreme scenarios!!
These scenarios are what they are - outcomes which require the government to do something about.
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
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!! 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the government asked for modelling with assumptions that painted a positive picture with a view to removing all restrictions then you’d be ok with it?
Personally, I don’t think the government should have any involvement and the modelling should present a much more balanced picture than the 15 December release does ie. Including a column using the SA omicron data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's not at all what they are asking!!
And anyway it would be very strange for asking models on risk, which include optimistic information. That's not the point of them. And yes, I think it would be weird if a government wanted examples of only non-event scenarios. As most sensible governments try plan for when things get worse - they don't need to plan about mitigating good impacts.
Nor do we typically need to prepare for non-events lol.
You might think it provides balance - I think it says very little about hypothetical extreme scenarios!!
These scenarios are what they are - outcomes which require the government to do something about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know why you’re talking about “non-event scenarios” mate. I’m not.
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 40 seconds ago
I guess there is a difference between asking for scenario analysis and specifying the assumptions within the model. As I understand it we’re looking at the former happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is the ONLY way it is used and requested then ok, sure.
But the direct quote was “ 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.”
If he said ‘we specifically modelled this on this occasion because we were asked to and we didn’t include the SA data because it was too early’ or something along those lines then again no problem. But he didn’t say that.
As I said earlier, this is one of the most difficult tasks so they have my sympathies and I’m not here to criticise being wrong but the assumptions used ‘generally’ should be the closest to reality as possible and right now that would include the SA data (in my non-expert opinion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I can discern the case number data, as a leading indicator, was used. Latent data, such as hospitalisations, not yet, but as above I expect and it is alluded to that once strong evidence on the impact of hospitalisations emerges then that will be included.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe they will in their next release
Hospital admissions
The data suggest that infections in the current wave are less likely to lead to hospital admission than in South Africa’s previous surges. After adjusting for vaccination status, the risk of hospital admission for newly diagnosed adults is 29% lower than in the first wave, said Shirley Collie, a statistician at Discovery Health, presenting the findings. “Furthermore,” she said, “adults admitted to hospital currently have a lower propensity to be admitted to high care and intensive care units, relative to prior waves.”
The World Health Organization’s director for Africa, Matshidiso Moeti, also described a wave characterised by faster spread and less severe illness. “We are cautiously optimistic,” she said at a 14 December briefing, “as we are seeing fewer deaths during the early weeks of this current wave when compared with previous surges.”
Researchers from the University of Hong Kong who studied omicron in ex vivo cultures of the respiratory tract found that it replicates 70 times faster than delta in human bronchus, but 10 times slower than delta in human lung tissue. The former finding could explain omicron’s rapid spread, the authors wrote, while the latter finding “may be an indicator of lower disease severity.”2
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
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!! 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the government asked for modelling with assumptions that painted a positive picture with a view to removing all restrictions then you’d be ok with it?
Personally, I don’t think the government should have any involvement and the modelling should present a much more balanced picture than the 15 December release does ie. Including a column using the SA omicron data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's not at all what they are asking!!
And anyway it would be very strange for asking models on risk, which include optimistic information. That's not the point of them. And yes, I think it would be weird if a government wanted examples of only non-event scenarios. As most sensible governments try plan for when things get worse - they don't need to plan about mitigating good impacts.
Nor do we typically need to prepare for non-events lol.
You might think it provides balance - I think it says very little about hypothetical extreme scenarios!!
These scenarios are what they are - outcomes which require the government to do something about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know why you’re talking about “non-event scenarios” mate. I’m not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
hese scenarios are what they are - outcomes which require the government to do something about.
Removing restrictions is doing something mate.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
Hospital admissions
The data suggest that infections in the current wave are less likely to lead to hospital admission than in South Africa’s previous surges. After adjusting for vaccination status, the risk of hospital admission for newly diagnosed adults is 29% lower than in the first wave, said Shirley Collie, a statistician at Discovery Health, presenting the findings. “Furthermore,” she said, “adults admitted to hospital currently have a lower propensity to be admitted to high care and intensive care units, relative to prior waves.”
The World Health Organization’s director for Africa, Matshidiso Moeti, also described a wave characterised by faster spread and less severe illness. “We are cautiously optimistic,” she said at a 14 December briefing, “as we are seeing fewer deaths during the early weeks of this current wave when compared with previous surges.”
Researchers from the University of Hong Kong who studied omicron in ex vivo cultures of the respiratory tract found that it replicates 70 times faster than delta in human bronchus, but 10 times slower than delta in human lung tissue. The former finding could explain omicron’s rapid spread, the authors wrote, while the latter finding “may be an indicator of lower disease severity.”2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
indeed and it is "summer" in south africa which we were informed coronavirus transmission is less, they also have a far younger population that we do in the UK
so between the UK and SA there is possibilily of different outcomes
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 40 seconds ago
I guess there is a difference between asking for scenario analysis and specifying the assumptions within the model. As I understand it we’re looking at the former happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is the ONLY way it is used and requested then ok, sure.
But the direct quote was “ 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.”
If he said ‘we specifically modelled this on this occasion because we were asked to and we didn’t include the SA data because it was too early’ or something along those lines then again no problem. But he didn’t say that.
As I said earlier, this is one of the most difficult tasks so they have my sympathies and I’m not here to criticise being wrong but the assumptions used ‘generally’ should be the closest to reality as possible and right now that would include the SA data (in my non-expert opinion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I can discern the case number data, as a leading indicator, was used. Latent data, such as hospitalisations, not yet, but as above I expect and it is alluded to that once strong evidence on the impact of hospitalisations emerges then that will be included.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe they will in their next release
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would expect them to for the next one or one after. I think all the way through when there has been strong evidence to update assumptions, they have been updated. Which is part of why it is frustrating that Nelson seems to be skipping over this and trying to make an ideological point.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1472638628627111940
🤔
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
Hospital admissions
The data suggest that infections in the current wave are less likely to lead to hospital admission than in South Africa’s previous surges. After adjusting for vaccination status, the risk of hospital admission for newly diagnosed adults is 29% lower than in the first wave, said Shirley Collie, a statistician at Discovery Health, presenting the findings. “Furthermore,” she said, “adults admitted to hospital currently have a lower propensity to be admitted to high care and intensive care units, relative to prior waves.”
The World Health Organization’s director for Africa, Matshidiso Moeti, also described a wave characterised by faster spread and less severe illness. “We are cautiously optimistic,” she said at a 14 December briefing, “as we are seeing fewer deaths during the early weeks of this current wave when compared with previous surges.”
Researchers from the University of Hong Kong who studied omicron in ex vivo cultures of the respiratory tract found that it replicates 70 times faster than delta in human bronchus, but 10 times slower than delta in human lung tissue. The former finding could explain omicron’s rapid spread, the authors wrote, while the latter finding “may be an indicator of lower disease severity.”2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
indeed and it is "summer" in south africa which we were informed coronavirus transmission is less, they also have a far younger population that we do in the UK
so between the UK and SA there is possibilily of different outcomes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
I'd prefer decision making to based on the possibility it might be deadlier. Than an assumption without hard evidence that it could be milder
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by Amado Carrillo Fuentes (U11781)
posted 2 minutes ago
Oh fack, Truss has replaced Frost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂😂 trolling the populace now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now"
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/701028930183110656?t=TNTw8LYZc1sy6SCdkPJ4RA&s=19
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? What age is middle aged? (U3126)
posted 4 hours, 1 minute ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Code for - highly talented person who I disagree with, who reached elite levels of government.
No idea what the ranting about Frost was about - we'd be stuck in parliamentary gridlock without him arguing over Norway ++++ models.
ECJ - infatuation - you mean, not wanting ECJ judges adjudicating on matters over Northern Ireland, and hauling the UK to its court if we didn't apply its verdicts. Yes, how outrageous
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? What age is middle aged? (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by Amado Carrillo Fuentes (U11781)
posted 2 minutes ago
Oh fack, Truss has replaced Frost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂😂 trolling the populace now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now"
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/701028930183110656?t=TNTw8LYZc1sy6SCdkPJ4RA&s=19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Person supported Remain takes on government position to negotiate Northern Ireland issue - so?
How is that a gotcha?
I mean, if you just said she is not up to the job, I would agree - but considering you smeared Frost for being an advocate of Brexit your criticism of Truss seems strange.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? What age is middle aged? (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by Amado Carrillo Fuentes (U11781)
posted 2 minutes ago
Oh fack, Truss has replaced Frost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂😂 trolling the populace now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now"
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/701028930183110656?t=TNTw8LYZc1sy6SCdkPJ4RA&s=19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂😂 touché
You guys really like the smell of each other's farts
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
Hospital admissions
The data suggest that infections in the current wave are less likely to lead to hospital admission than in South Africa’s previous surges. After adjusting for vaccination status, the risk of hospital admission for newly diagnosed adults is 29% lower than in the first wave, said Shirley Collie, a statistician at Discovery Health, presenting the findings. “Furthermore,” she said, “adults admitted to hospital currently have a lower propensity to be admitted to high care and intensive care units, relative to prior waves.”
The World Health Organization’s director for Africa, Matshidiso Moeti, also described a wave characterised by faster spread and less severe illness. “We are cautiously optimistic,” she said at a 14 December briefing, “as we are seeing fewer deaths during the early weeks of this current wave when compared with previous surges.”
Researchers from the University of Hong Kong who studied omicron in ex vivo cultures of the respiratory tract found that it replicates 70 times faster than delta in human bronchus, but 10 times slower than delta in human lung tissue. The former finding could explain omicron’s rapid spread, the authors wrote, while the latter finding “may be an indicator of lower disease severity.”2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
indeed and it is "summer" in south africa which we were informed coronavirus transmission is less, they also have a far younger population that we do in the UK
so between the UK and SA there is possibilily of different outcomes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There is already a range of a factor of TEN throughout. I don’t think adding the current data from SA is a problem.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
Hospital admissions
The data suggest that infections in the current wave are less likely to lead to hospital admission than in South Africa’s previous surges. After adjusting for vaccination status, the risk of hospital admission for newly diagnosed adults is 29% lower than in the first wave, said Shirley Collie, a statistician at Discovery Health, presenting the findings. “Furthermore,” she said, “adults admitted to hospital currently have a lower propensity to be admitted to high care and intensive care units, relative to prior waves.”
The World Health Organization’s director for Africa, Matshidiso Moeti, also described a wave characterised by faster spread and less severe illness. “We are cautiously optimistic,” she said at a 14 December briefing, “as we are seeing fewer deaths during the early weeks of this current wave when compared with previous surges.”
Researchers from the University of Hong Kong who studied omicron in ex vivo cultures of the respiratory tract found that it replicates 70 times faster than delta in human bronchus, but 10 times slower than delta in human lung tissue. The former finding could explain omicron’s rapid spread, the authors wrote, while the latter finding “may be an indicator of lower disease severity.”2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
indeed and it is "summer" in south africa which we were informed coronavirus transmission is less, they also have a far younger population that we do in the UK
so between the UK and SA there is possibilily of different outcomes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There is already a range of a factor of TEN throughout. I don’t think adding the current data from SA is a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you wouldn't mind factors of 1000 so long as they contained a "no measures necessary" option?
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
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!! 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the government asked for modelling with assumptions that painted a positive picture with a view to removing all restrictions then you’d be ok with it?
Personally, I don’t think the government should have any involvement and the modelling should present a much more balanced picture than the 15 December release does ie. Including a column using the SA omicron data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's not at all what they are asking!!
And anyway it would be very strange for asking models on risk, which include optimistic information. That's not the point of them. And yes, I think it would be weird if a government wanted examples of only non-event scenarios. As most sensible governments try plan for when things get worse - they don't need to plan about mitigating good impacts.
Nor do we typically need to prepare for non-events lol.
You might think it provides balance - I think it says very little about hypothetical extreme scenarios!!
These scenarios are what they are - outcomes which require the government to do something about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know why you’re talking about “non-event scenarios” mate. I’m not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It means that the number cases do not trigger any decisions/measures!
Anyway, I think we have reached an impasse really. I have said what I can say on the matter.
Based on the current evidence, I do not support any draconian measures. But I do not disapprove of the government seeking out information on extreme circumstances.
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
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!! 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the government asked for modelling with assumptions that painted a positive picture with a view to removing all restrictions then you’d be ok with it?
Personally, I don’t think the government should have any involvement and the modelling should present a much more balanced picture than the 15 December release does ie. Including a column using the SA omicron data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's not at all what they are asking!!
And anyway it would be very strange for asking models on risk, which include optimistic information. That's not the point of them. And yes, I think it would be weird if a government wanted examples of only non-event scenarios. As most sensible governments try plan for when things get worse - they don't need to plan about mitigating good impacts.
Nor do we typically need to prepare for non-events lol.
You might think it provides balance - I think it says very little about hypothetical extreme scenarios!!
These scenarios are what they are - outcomes which require the government to do something about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know why you’re talking about “non-event scenarios” mate. I’m not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It means that the number cases do not trigger any decisions/measures!
Anyway, I think we have reached an impasse really. I have said what I can say on the matter.
Based on the current evidence, I do not support any draconian measures. But I do not disapprove of the government seeking out information on extreme circumstances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither do I but I think I can speak for us all when I say that this government is hardly trustworthy when it comes to sticking to their plans
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks! It's been a headache to try convey my point!
And yeah, the discussion between Nelson and Medley is interesting, as it shows the differences between rhetorical skills in discussion.
Nelson is obviously every good at communicating his points, and asking tricky questions. Medley on the other hand, shows the rhetoric skill of a scientist!
Often though people mistake rhetorical devices for salient points. Rhetorical devices are much flashier!!
Sign in if you want to comment
Politics Thread
Page 2101 of 6025
2102 | 2103 | 2104 | 2105 | 2106
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
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!! 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the government asked for modelling with assumptions that painted a positive picture with a view to removing all restrictions then you’d be ok with it?
Personally, I don’t think the government should have any involvement and the modelling should present a much more balanced picture than the 15 December release does ie. Including a column using the SA omicron data.
posted on 19/12/21
I guess there is a difference between asking for scenario analysis and specifying the assumptions within the model. As I understand it we’re looking at the former happening.
posted on 19/12/21
Oh fack, Truss has replaced Frost
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Amado Carrillo Fuentes (U11781)
posted 2 minutes ago
Oh fack, Truss has replaced Frost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂😂 trolling the populace now.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 40 seconds ago
I guess there is a difference between asking for scenario analysis and specifying the assumptions within the model. As I understand it we’re looking at the former happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is the ONLY way it is used and requested then ok, sure.
But the direct quote was “ 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.”
If he said ‘we specifically modelled this on this occasion because we were asked to and we didn’t include the SA data because it was too early’ or something along those lines then again no problem. But he didn’t say that.
As I said earlier, this is one of the most difficult tasks so they have my sympathies and I’m not here to criticise being wrong but the assumptions used ‘generally’ should be the closest to reality as possible and right now that would include the SA data (in my non-expert opinion)
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 40 seconds ago
I guess there is a difference between asking for scenario analysis and specifying the assumptions within the model. As I understand it we’re looking at the former happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is the ONLY way it is used and requested then ok, sure.
But the direct quote was “ 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.”
If he said ‘we specifically modelled this on this occasion because we were asked to and we didn’t include the SA data because it was too early’ or something along those lines then again no problem. But he didn’t say that.
As I said earlier, this is one of the most difficult tasks so they have my sympathies and I’m not here to criticise being wrong but the assumptions used ‘generally’ should be the closest to reality as possible and right now that would include the SA data (in my non-expert opinion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I can discern the case number data, as a leading indicator, was used. Latent data, such as hospitalisations, not yet, but as above I expect and it is alluded to that once strong evidence on the impact of hospitalisations emerges then that will be included.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
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!! 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the government asked for modelling with assumptions that painted a positive picture with a view to removing all restrictions then you’d be ok with it?
Personally, I don’t think the government should have any involvement and the modelling should present a much more balanced picture than the 15 December release does ie. Including a column using the SA omicron data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's not at all what they are asking!!
And anyway it would be very strange for asking models on risk, which include optimistic information. That's not the point of them. And yes, I think it would be weird if a government wanted examples of only non-event scenarios. As most sensible governments try plan for when things get worse - they don't need to plan about mitigating good impacts.
Nor do we typically need to prepare for non-events lol.
You might think it provides balance - I think it says very little about hypothetical extreme scenarios!!
These scenarios are what they are - outcomes which require the government to do something about.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
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!! 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the government asked for modelling with assumptions that painted a positive picture with a view to removing all restrictions then you’d be ok with it?
Personally, I don’t think the government should have any involvement and the modelling should present a much more balanced picture than the 15 December release does ie. Including a column using the SA omicron data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's not at all what they are asking!!
And anyway it would be very strange for asking models on risk, which include optimistic information. That's not the point of them. And yes, I think it would be weird if a government wanted examples of only non-event scenarios. As most sensible governments try plan for when things get worse - they don't need to plan about mitigating good impacts.
Nor do we typically need to prepare for non-events lol.
You might think it provides balance - I think it says very little about hypothetical extreme scenarios!!
These scenarios are what they are - outcomes which require the government to do something about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know why you’re talking about “non-event scenarios” mate. I’m not.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 40 seconds ago
I guess there is a difference between asking for scenario analysis and specifying the assumptions within the model. As I understand it we’re looking at the former happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is the ONLY way it is used and requested then ok, sure.
But the direct quote was “ 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.”
If he said ‘we specifically modelled this on this occasion because we were asked to and we didn’t include the SA data because it was too early’ or something along those lines then again no problem. But he didn’t say that.
As I said earlier, this is one of the most difficult tasks so they have my sympathies and I’m not here to criticise being wrong but the assumptions used ‘generally’ should be the closest to reality as possible and right now that would include the SA data (in my non-expert opinion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I can discern the case number data, as a leading indicator, was used. Latent data, such as hospitalisations, not yet, but as above I expect and it is alluded to that once strong evidence on the impact of hospitalisations emerges then that will be included.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe they will in their next release
posted on 19/12/21
Hospital admissions
The data suggest that infections in the current wave are less likely to lead to hospital admission than in South Africa’s previous surges. After adjusting for vaccination status, the risk of hospital admission for newly diagnosed adults is 29% lower than in the first wave, said Shirley Collie, a statistician at Discovery Health, presenting the findings. “Furthermore,” she said, “adults admitted to hospital currently have a lower propensity to be admitted to high care and intensive care units, relative to prior waves.”
The World Health Organization’s director for Africa, Matshidiso Moeti, also described a wave characterised by faster spread and less severe illness. “We are cautiously optimistic,” she said at a 14 December briefing, “as we are seeing fewer deaths during the early weeks of this current wave when compared with previous surges.”
Researchers from the University of Hong Kong who studied omicron in ex vivo cultures of the respiratory tract found that it replicates 70 times faster than delta in human bronchus, but 10 times slower than delta in human lung tissue. The former finding could explain omicron’s rapid spread, the authors wrote, while the latter finding “may be an indicator of lower disease severity.”2
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
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!! 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the government asked for modelling with assumptions that painted a positive picture with a view to removing all restrictions then you’d be ok with it?
Personally, I don’t think the government should have any involvement and the modelling should present a much more balanced picture than the 15 December release does ie. Including a column using the SA omicron data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's not at all what they are asking!!
And anyway it would be very strange for asking models on risk, which include optimistic information. That's not the point of them. And yes, I think it would be weird if a government wanted examples of only non-event scenarios. As most sensible governments try plan for when things get worse - they don't need to plan about mitigating good impacts.
Nor do we typically need to prepare for non-events lol.
You might think it provides balance - I think it says very little about hypothetical extreme scenarios!!
These scenarios are what they are - outcomes which require the government to do something about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know why you’re talking about “non-event scenarios” mate. I’m not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
hese scenarios are what they are - outcomes which require the government to do something about.
Removing restrictions is doing something mate.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
Hospital admissions
The data suggest that infections in the current wave are less likely to lead to hospital admission than in South Africa’s previous surges. After adjusting for vaccination status, the risk of hospital admission for newly diagnosed adults is 29% lower than in the first wave, said Shirley Collie, a statistician at Discovery Health, presenting the findings. “Furthermore,” she said, “adults admitted to hospital currently have a lower propensity to be admitted to high care and intensive care units, relative to prior waves.”
The World Health Organization’s director for Africa, Matshidiso Moeti, also described a wave characterised by faster spread and less severe illness. “We are cautiously optimistic,” she said at a 14 December briefing, “as we are seeing fewer deaths during the early weeks of this current wave when compared with previous surges.”
Researchers from the University of Hong Kong who studied omicron in ex vivo cultures of the respiratory tract found that it replicates 70 times faster than delta in human bronchus, but 10 times slower than delta in human lung tissue. The former finding could explain omicron’s rapid spread, the authors wrote, while the latter finding “may be an indicator of lower disease severity.”2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
indeed and it is "summer" in south africa which we were informed coronavirus transmission is less, they also have a far younger population that we do in the UK
so between the UK and SA there is possibilily of different outcomes
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 40 seconds ago
I guess there is a difference between asking for scenario analysis and specifying the assumptions within the model. As I understand it we’re looking at the former happening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is the ONLY way it is used and requested then ok, sure.
But the direct quote was “ 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.”
If he said ‘we specifically modelled this on this occasion because we were asked to and we didn’t include the SA data because it was too early’ or something along those lines then again no problem. But he didn’t say that.
As I said earlier, this is one of the most difficult tasks so they have my sympathies and I’m not here to criticise being wrong but the assumptions used ‘generally’ should be the closest to reality as possible and right now that would include the SA data (in my non-expert opinion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I can discern the case number data, as a leading indicator, was used. Latent data, such as hospitalisations, not yet, but as above I expect and it is alluded to that once strong evidence on the impact of hospitalisations emerges then that will be included.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe they will in their next release
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would expect them to for the next one or one after. I think all the way through when there has been strong evidence to update assumptions, they have been updated. Which is part of why it is frustrating that Nelson seems to be skipping over this and trying to make an ideological point.
posted on 19/12/21
https://mobile.twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1472638628627111940
🤔
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
Hospital admissions
The data suggest that infections in the current wave are less likely to lead to hospital admission than in South Africa’s previous surges. After adjusting for vaccination status, the risk of hospital admission for newly diagnosed adults is 29% lower than in the first wave, said Shirley Collie, a statistician at Discovery Health, presenting the findings. “Furthermore,” she said, “adults admitted to hospital currently have a lower propensity to be admitted to high care and intensive care units, relative to prior waves.”
The World Health Organization’s director for Africa, Matshidiso Moeti, also described a wave characterised by faster spread and less severe illness. “We are cautiously optimistic,” she said at a 14 December briefing, “as we are seeing fewer deaths during the early weeks of this current wave when compared with previous surges.”
Researchers from the University of Hong Kong who studied omicron in ex vivo cultures of the respiratory tract found that it replicates 70 times faster than delta in human bronchus, but 10 times slower than delta in human lung tissue. The former finding could explain omicron’s rapid spread, the authors wrote, while the latter finding “may be an indicator of lower disease severity.”2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
indeed and it is "summer" in south africa which we were informed coronavirus transmission is less, they also have a far younger population that we do in the UK
so between the UK and SA there is possibilily of different outcomes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
I'd prefer decision making to based on the possibility it might be deadlier. Than an assumption without hard evidence that it could be milder
posted on 19/12/21
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by Amado Carrillo Fuentes (U11781)
posted 2 minutes ago
Oh fack, Truss has replaced Frost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂😂 trolling the populace now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now"
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/701028930183110656?t=TNTw8LYZc1sy6SCdkPJ4RA&s=19
posted on 19/12/21
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? What age is middle aged? (U3126)
posted 4 hours, 1 minute ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Code for - highly talented person who I disagree with, who reached elite levels of government.
No idea what the ranting about Frost was about - we'd be stuck in parliamentary gridlock without him arguing over Norway ++++ models.
ECJ - infatuation - you mean, not wanting ECJ judges adjudicating on matters over Northern Ireland, and hauling the UK to its court if we didn't apply its verdicts. Yes, how outrageous
posted on 19/12/21
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? What age is middle aged? (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by Amado Carrillo Fuentes (U11781)
posted 2 minutes ago
Oh fack, Truss has replaced Frost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂😂 trolling the populace now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now"
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/701028930183110656?t=TNTw8LYZc1sy6SCdkPJ4RA&s=19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Person supported Remain takes on government position to negotiate Northern Ireland issue - so?
How is that a gotcha?
I mean, if you just said she is not up to the job, I would agree - but considering you smeared Frost for being an advocate of Brexit your criticism of Truss seems strange.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? What age is middle aged? (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by Amado Carrillo Fuentes (U11781)
posted 2 minutes ago
Oh fack, Truss has replaced Frost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂😂 trolling the populace now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now"
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/701028930183110656?t=TNTw8LYZc1sy6SCdkPJ4RA&s=19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
😂😂 touché
posted on 19/12/21
You guys really like the smell of each other's farts
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
Hospital admissions
The data suggest that infections in the current wave are less likely to lead to hospital admission than in South Africa’s previous surges. After adjusting for vaccination status, the risk of hospital admission for newly diagnosed adults is 29% lower than in the first wave, said Shirley Collie, a statistician at Discovery Health, presenting the findings. “Furthermore,” she said, “adults admitted to hospital currently have a lower propensity to be admitted to high care and intensive care units, relative to prior waves.”
The World Health Organization’s director for Africa, Matshidiso Moeti, also described a wave characterised by faster spread and less severe illness. “We are cautiously optimistic,” she said at a 14 December briefing, “as we are seeing fewer deaths during the early weeks of this current wave when compared with previous surges.”
Researchers from the University of Hong Kong who studied omicron in ex vivo cultures of the respiratory tract found that it replicates 70 times faster than delta in human bronchus, but 10 times slower than delta in human lung tissue. The former finding could explain omicron’s rapid spread, the authors wrote, while the latter finding “may be an indicator of lower disease severity.”2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
indeed and it is "summer" in south africa which we were informed coronavirus transmission is less, they also have a far younger population that we do in the UK
so between the UK and SA there is possibilily of different outcomes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There is already a range of a factor of TEN throughout. I don’t think adding the current data from SA is a problem.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Samus (Isle of) Arran (U22669)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
Hospital admissions
The data suggest that infections in the current wave are less likely to lead to hospital admission than in South Africa’s previous surges. After adjusting for vaccination status, the risk of hospital admission for newly diagnosed adults is 29% lower than in the first wave, said Shirley Collie, a statistician at Discovery Health, presenting the findings. “Furthermore,” she said, “adults admitted to hospital currently have a lower propensity to be admitted to high care and intensive care units, relative to prior waves.”
The World Health Organization’s director for Africa, Matshidiso Moeti, also described a wave characterised by faster spread and less severe illness. “We are cautiously optimistic,” she said at a 14 December briefing, “as we are seeing fewer deaths during the early weeks of this current wave when compared with previous surges.”
Researchers from the University of Hong Kong who studied omicron in ex vivo cultures of the respiratory tract found that it replicates 70 times faster than delta in human bronchus, but 10 times slower than delta in human lung tissue. The former finding could explain omicron’s rapid spread, the authors wrote, while the latter finding “may be an indicator of lower disease severity.”2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
indeed and it is "summer" in south africa which we were informed coronavirus transmission is less, they also have a far younger population that we do in the UK
so between the UK and SA there is possibilily of different outcomes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There is already a range of a factor of TEN throughout. I don’t think adding the current data from SA is a problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you wouldn't mind factors of 1000 so long as they contained a "no measures necessary" option?
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
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!! 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the government asked for modelling with assumptions that painted a positive picture with a view to removing all restrictions then you’d be ok with it?
Personally, I don’t think the government should have any involvement and the modelling should present a much more balanced picture than the 15 December release does ie. Including a column using the SA omicron data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's not at all what they are asking!!
And anyway it would be very strange for asking models on risk, which include optimistic information. That's not the point of them. And yes, I think it would be weird if a government wanted examples of only non-event scenarios. As most sensible governments try plan for when things get worse - they don't need to plan about mitigating good impacts.
Nor do we typically need to prepare for non-events lol.
You might think it provides balance - I think it says very little about hypothetical extreme scenarios!!
These scenarios are what they are - outcomes which require the government to do something about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know why you’re talking about “non-event scenarios” mate. I’m not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It means that the number cases do not trigger any decisions/measures!
Anyway, I think we have reached an impasse really. I have said what I can say on the matter.
Based on the current evidence, I do not support any draconian measures. But I do not disapprove of the government seeking out information on extreme circumstances.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 5 minutes ago
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!! 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the government asked for modelling with assumptions that painted a positive picture with a view to removing all restrictions then you’d be ok with it?
Personally, I don’t think the government should have any involvement and the modelling should present a much more balanced picture than the 15 December release does ie. Including a column using the SA omicron data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's not at all what they are asking!!
And anyway it would be very strange for asking models on risk, which include optimistic information. That's not the point of them. And yes, I think it would be weird if a government wanted examples of only non-event scenarios. As most sensible governments try plan for when things get worse - they don't need to plan about mitigating good impacts.
Nor do we typically need to prepare for non-events lol.
You might think it provides balance - I think it says very little about hypothetical extreme scenarios!!
These scenarios are what they are - outcomes which require the government to do something about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t know why you’re talking about “non-event scenarios” mate. I’m not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It means that the number cases do not trigger any decisions/measures!
Anyway, I think we have reached an impasse really. I have said what I can say on the matter.
Based on the current evidence, I do not support any draconian measures. But I do not disapprove of the government seeking out information on extreme circumstances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither do I but I think I can speak for us all when I say that this government is hardly trustworthy when it comes to sticking to their plans
posted on 19/12/21
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks! It's been a headache to try convey my point!
And yeah, the discussion between Nelson and Medley is interesting, as it shows the differences between rhetorical skills in discussion.
Nelson is obviously every good at communicating his points, and asking tricky questions. Medley on the other hand, shows the rhetoric skill of a scientist!
Often though people mistake rhetorical devices for salient points. Rhetorical devices are much flashier!!
Page 2101 of 6025
2102 | 2103 | 2104 | 2105 | 2106