comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 5 minutes ago
The omicron data on cases is in the latest iterations though. The specific issue you have on omicron is (and please correct if I’ve misinterpreted) is that you believe there was strong evidence at the time of the latest iteration of the model regarding hospitalisation rates (from SA) that you think should have been included in the model? And the latest SPI-o-m update included a statement that this info wasn’t strong enough at this point to include. The implication being from the statement that when evidence is more robust, assumptions will be adjusted. That is reasonable no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s reasonable as long as it is the same as was applied when delta emerged in India. The variant of concern
comment by NPE - Finding Timo (U22712)
posted 15 minutes ago
It's ok - I still don't understand why the modelling didn't include scenarios where Omicron was milder.
I also don't grasp why if you are asked to build a model on Omicron severity you don't factor in 95 per cent of the country have antibodies alongside T cell & memory cell resistance.
It is also clear that if the models weren't mean as forecasts, SAGE should have been much less determined to push lockdowns on people and that politicians on both sides of the argument who have been present models as predictions should have been publicly corrected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a weak disclaimer. Like I said, if they aren’t predictions, then give me some fking predictions ffs.
What I think BH and clearly Medley are refusing to acknowledge is that this ‘inform us of nothing’ is completely wrong. They tell us a lot when it comes to decisions such as keeping WFH going and other guidelines / restrictions.
And I don’t see why Medley didn’t simply reply to Fraser saying that the current SA data wasn’t sufficient to include if that is the case. It’s a perfectly reasonable explanation and somewhat convenient that the cases are included (which being so much more transmissible and therefore high and therefore again encouraging caution) yet the hospitalisations aren’t which from the limited data I’ve read are less scary….hopefully just coincidental and within a couple of weeks (after more restrictions are put in place of course) those numbers will get added in an update.
comment by NPE - Finding Timo (U22712)
posted 3 hours, 16 minutes ago
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shocking news!
Northern Ireland (as per agreement with EU) fundamentally remains in EU SM to mitigate a North/South border. The ECJ is the ultimate arbitrator of it's own internal market. Which NI is part of.
As NI, (per protocol - pages 20/23 from memory) remains in EU SM, EU/UK agreed that ECJ should be the final and ultimate arbitration mechanism in 2019
Worth noting there are are range of joint committee arrangements, (with representation on both sides) which are designed to ensure joint cooperation and avoid ECJ escalation.
The ECJ (being the final arbitrator) when all other dispute mechanisms have been exhausted, is the final option. And will adjudicate accordingly. In line with EU law. Which the UK government accepted.
Frost then sought to remove ECJ arbitration completely which was never going to be a flyer.
He probably knew that but given the state many in the Conservative party (free market head cases) was always going to be in diffs.
Liz Truss would be best placed listening to and working with NI stakeholders and businesses.
Did you have to wait until 11.03pm before dropping that on me, mate?
David Frost has been engaged in talks with Sefcovic for months, and the EU has stonewalled any attempts to have independent arbitrators like there are for both the Brexit deal and Withdrawal Agreement.
The agreement on Northern Ireland remaining in the single market and customs union was - in practical terms - always likely to be an arrangement that evolved over time, with also a requirement for discretion and flexibility when it comes to invoking Article 16, or utilising the ECJ.
Would add - that the perception Frost was the pugilistic hard-liner depends on a) highly charitable interpretations of EU behaviour over recent months and b) Boris Johnson being the doormat
I am sceptical of both claims.
Shall we discuss tomorrow? Happy to chat about this.
"Worth noting there are are range of joint committee arrangements, (with representation on both sides) which are designed to ensure joint cooperation and avoid ECJ escalation."
Do you mean arbitration prior to ECJ involvement - in line with what the EU offered Switzerland?
Sorry - asking for clarity and out of ignorance.
Secondly, I am aware the EU made a very fair concession on medicines relating to Covid-19, although the barriers existing in the first place were a little baffling to me.
Ok now I do have to go to sleep.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 7 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 49 seconds ago
The most consistently accurate figures have most often been their lowest figures. Again, this isn’t their fault but christ…
The numbers their modelling pumped out in July, the closest to reality was on the basis of a small and gradual drop in precautionary behaviour over a 3 month period (always with default vaccine efficiency)
Their small change within a one month period had us with around 500 daily deaths in October
So with this latest one if the guardian for example wrote 200 deaths instead of 6000 what do we think the reaction/actions would be?
Has any of their worst case modelling come to pass? Maybe January 2021’s numbers? Maybe they were predicting 5,000 daily deaths for that period, can’t say I remember.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the predictions on deaths in January were fairly close only Cambridge was way off with 4000 daily deaths.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their worst case modelling hasn't come to pass because we haven't followed any worst case scenarios?
It's reported on, and people change their behaviour, the Gov change their advice or introduce some rules, and hey presto worst case scenario is avoided.
People then seemingly point at it and say "HEEEEY, THEY LIED!!!" completely ignoring the fact that it wasn't the scenario that played out.
comment by NPE - Finding Timo (U22712)
posted 9 hours, 34 minutes ago
I started a 12 hour row
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially amusing as we are debating much ado about nothing really!
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
I know you mentioned that we’re at an impasse but can I just clarify that I’m not struggling to understand the point you’re making; it’s really not that difficult to understand.
Where we differ is that you think I want scenarios where no action is to be taken “non-event” whereas removing restrictions is absolutely an action and therefore it is important to include such data. If the government specifically requested not to include any data from SA and insisted that omicron be treated as fatal as delta for a specific query then I’m fine with that as long as these numbers aren’t pumped through the media and used to prep people for more restrictions.
Like this for example which I know BMCL will hate:
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/18/uk-scientists-curbs-covid-infections-omicron-deaths-restrictions-sage
Medley says that these aren’t predictions, that they are illustrations of possibilities and uncertainty. So why not include the SA data?
Anecdotally (yes I know that doesn’t hold much weight but perhaps others have encountered the same), I known a fair few people now to have caught covid recently and tested negative within 7 days which I had never heard before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So your problem is that they did not include a model which includes removing restrictions? For the sake of balance and fairness? ~~ No my point is that they should have included the data available from SA into their modelling as a separate line across the graphs.
Of course removing restrictions are actions, but we are talking about decisions based on 'mitigating' high severity risks, and the respective models for them. ~~why are not also including data into these models to show lower risks? Why always focus on the highest risk levels, it’s not just blind curiosity, these numbers are used for something
And removing measures is a very different kind analysis. It's not about mitigating number of cases, but about trying to reestablish normalcy in society.
~~ justifying the action of removing restrictions is absolutely based on the numbers
I am not sure why though it would need to be included right now. And thats why I feel we are at an impasse. ~~ because omicron is clearly the new kid on block on the available data should be included. There is already a huge amount of guesswork involved hence the regularly disclaimers they graffiti all over their documents so why not pump the omicron data through their models also? It’s still not a prediction, right?
I don't think it's persuasive to say that it adds useful information right now to the government. It would miss the point completely. ~~ miss what point? The point of mainly focusing on worst case, worse case and bad case only? And refusing to use the current data on omicron? Sorry but that makes no sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Replies above mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmm... I am not a huge fan of this posting style - as adding anything else just gets messy?!
I think in general your argument: is why not include data showing low severity risks, and only high severity.
So we can possibly agree that low severity means - reducing restrictions or making no further ones.
So why are they not making models for either outcomes?
Its very simple really - we are looking at an influx of cases. These more optimistic models are made usually when cases are going down. The government wants to see if this will be risky period, and what to do to combat it. The government needs to make plans for bad scenarios, which require them to enact policy.
Not bad scenarios either just mean reversing decisions or policy of the past, or doing nothing.
Lastly, I should add that I find all this very reasonable. Not every possible world scenario needs to be modelled and represented. And it's very normal for science to narrow down to focus on one thing.
Every possible world scenario? Ok best leave it there if you’re going down that road
Is missing 3 COBRA meetings in a row a dereliction of duty?
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 4 hours, 55 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 7 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 49 seconds ago
The most consistently accurate figures have most often been their lowest figures. Again, this isn’t their fault but christ…
The numbers their modelling pumped out in July, the closest to reality was on the basis of a small and gradual drop in precautionary behaviour over a 3 month period (always with default vaccine efficiency)
Their small change within a one month period had us with around 500 daily deaths in October
So with this latest one if the guardian for example wrote 200 deaths instead of 6000 what do we think the reaction/actions would be?
Has any of their worst case modelling come to pass? Maybe January 2021’s numbers? Maybe they were predicting 5,000 daily deaths for that period, can’t say I remember.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the predictions on deaths in January were fairly close only Cambridge was way off with 4000 daily deaths.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their worst case modelling hasn't come to pass because we haven't followed any worst case scenarios?
It's reported on, and people change their behaviour, the Gov change their advice or introduce some rules, and hey presto worst case scenario is avoided.
People then seemingly point at it and say "HEEEEY, THEY LIED!!!" completely ignoring the fact that it wasn't the scenario that played out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes this point was made clear in the (yuck) spectator article I shared pages and pages ago.
How many of you are actually working from home?
I'm just wondering if half the arguments are academic desktop exercises as opposed to those of us that are having to actually go out, go into buildings, mix with strangers, use public transport etc. and then go home to our families.
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
I know you mentioned that we’re at an impasse but can I just clarify that I’m not struggling to understand the point you’re making; it’s really not that difficult to understand.
Where we differ is that you think I want scenarios where no action is to be taken “non-event” whereas removing restrictions is absolutely an action and therefore it is important to include such data. If the government specifically requested not to include any data from SA and insisted that omicron be treated as fatal as delta for a specific query then I’m fine with that as long as these numbers aren’t pumped through the media and used to prep people for more restrictions.
Like this for example which I know BMCL will hate:
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/18/uk-scientists-curbs-covid-infections-omicron-deaths-restrictions-sage
Medley says that these aren’t predictions, that they are illustrations of possibilities and uncertainty. So why not include the SA data?
Anecdotally (yes I know that doesn’t hold much weight but perhaps others have encountered the same), I known a fair few people now to have caught covid recently and tested negative within 7 days which I had never heard before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So your problem is that they did not include a model which includes removing restrictions? For the sake of balance and fairness? ~~ No my point is that they should have included the data available from SA into their modelling as a separate line across the graphs.
Of course removing restrictions are actions, but we are talking about decisions based on 'mitigating' high severity risks, and the respective models for them. ~~why are not also including data into these models to show lower risks? Why always focus on the highest risk levels, it’s not just blind curiosity, these numbers are used for something
And removing measures is a very different kind analysis. It's not about mitigating number of cases, but about trying to reestablish normalcy in society.
~~ justifying the action of removing restrictions is absolutely based on the numbers
I am not sure why though it would need to be included right now. And thats why I feel we are at an impasse. ~~ because omicron is clearly the new kid on block on the available data should be included. There is already a huge amount of guesswork involved hence the regularly disclaimers they graffiti all over their documents so why not pump the omicron data through their models also? It’s still not a prediction, right?
I don't think it's persuasive to say that it adds useful information right now to the government. It would miss the point completely. ~~ miss what point? The point of mainly focusing on worst case, worse case and bad case only? And refusing to use the current data on omicron? Sorry but that makes no sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Replies above mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmm... I am not a huge fan of this posting style - as adding anything else just gets messy?!
I think in general your argument: is why not include data showing low severity risks, and only high severity.
So we can possibly agree that low severity means - reducing restrictions or making no further ones.
So why are they not making models for either outcomes?
Its very simple really - we are looking at an influx of cases. These more optimistic models are made usually when cases are going down. The government wants to see if this will be risky period, and what to do to combat it. The government needs to make plans for bad scenarios, which require them to enact policy.
Not bad scenarios either just mean reversing decisions or policy of the past, or doing nothing.
Lastly, I should add that I find all this very reasonable. Not every possible world scenario needs to be modelled and represented. And it's very normal for science to narrow down to focus on one thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stress and scenario testing in financial institutions won’t spend any time, or even generate and share results, down at the “optimistic “ end of the spectrum. The modelling approach adopted through SPI-o-m is entirely consistent with this approach. And note when I say financial institutions I mean financial models and demographic (mortality/morbidity) models.
The only time one might if one predicted that the distribution had kinks (steady now lads) where it in effect looped back on itself. I don’t get a sense from methodology shared that this is the case here.
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 5 minutes ago
Is missing 3 COBRA meetings in a row a dereliction of duty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is wanting to distance himself from having to take difficult decisions that will upset his remaining base (Russian bots aside).
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 minutes ago
How many of you are actually working from home?
I'm just wondering if half the arguments are academic desktop exercises as opposed to those of us that are having to actually go out, go into buildings, mix with strangers, use public transport etc. and then go home to our families.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm having to work on site this week. I work in pharma manufacturing though, so don't work from home in lockdowns anyway. Always have to be hybrid and prepared to go in.
More parties as breaking news today.
Boris in his garden with 17 others during the first lockdown eating cheese and wine. "Not a party we are told, it was a business meeting"
Now cast your mind back to the Allegra Stratton recording. Doesnt she joke "it wasn't a party, it was cheese and wine" ?
Maybe I'm reading too much in to it, but that doesn't seem coincidental, it seems like knowledge of such activities was widespread and joked about.
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 6 minutes ago
How many of you are actually working from home?
I'm just wondering if half the arguments are academic desktop exercises as opposed to those of us that are having to actually go out, go into buildings, mix with strangers, use public transport etc. and then go home to our families.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't deliver post from home.. I do get to mix in close quarters with 45 others each morning though, then do my job and go home to my clinically vulnerable father.
I'm in favour of measures to protect people's health, and to prevent the NHS cancelling services.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 minutes ago
How many of you are actually working from home?
I'm just wondering if half the arguments are academic desktop exercises as opposed to those of us that are having to actually go out, go into buildings, mix with strangers, use public transport etc. and then go home to our families.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm having to work on site this week. I work in pharma manufacturing though, so don't work from home in lockdowns anyway. Always have to be hybrid and prepared to go in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Working from home as is my wife. We go down to have lunch and/or on our local high street a few times a week, and in general the high street here is busier than it would be when I worked from home pre-pandemic. Neither of us has tested positive or been pinged during the pandemic.
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 13 hours, 36 minutes ago
I think a mistake people often have is assuming there is a political agenda behind all things.
Theres corruption in the world, but sadly most things are much more mundane!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My take from that conversation was that of what Medley was saying was as sinister as it’s been claimed (that SAGE are basically asked to run models that will result in lockdowns etc), then he obviously wouldn’t be chatting about it with a journalist on Twitter. It was probably more complex than the discussion made it seem but I don’t think he got his explanations across very well, for whatever reason.
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 13 hours, 36 minutes ago
I think a mistake people often have is assuming there is a political agenda behind all things.
Theres corruption in the world, but sadly most things are much more mundane!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My take from that conversation was that of what Medley was saying was as sinister as it’s been claimed (that SAGE are basically asked to run models that will result in lockdowns etc), then he obviously wouldn’t be chatting about it with a journalist on Twitter. It was probably more complex than the discussion made it seem but I don’t think he got his explanations across very well, for whatever reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I’ll repeat, he was repeating what he had said, in an article, in the spectator, in October.
Does anyone NOT know someone with covid now?
People at work dropping like flies... My whole team off, looks like I'm a glorified receptionist until 2022
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 24 seconds ago
Does anyone NOT know someone with covid now?
People at work dropping like flies... My whole team off, looks like I'm a glorified receptionist until 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can replace my Secretary if you like
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 minutes ago
How many of you are actually working from home?
I'm just wondering if half the arguments are academic desktop exercises as opposed to those of us that are having to actually go out, go into buildings, mix with strangers, use public transport etc. and then go home to our families.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm having to work on site this week. I work in pharma manufacturing though, so don't work from home in lockdowns anyway. Always have to be hybrid and prepared to go in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m generally not working at home, I hate it.
Sign in if you want to comment
Politics Thread
Page 2103 of 6156
2104 | 2105 | 2106 | 2107 | 2108
posted on 19/12/21
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 5 minutes ago
The omicron data on cases is in the latest iterations though. The specific issue you have on omicron is (and please correct if I’ve misinterpreted) is that you believe there was strong evidence at the time of the latest iteration of the model regarding hospitalisation rates (from SA) that you think should have been included in the model? And the latest SPI-o-m update included a statement that this info wasn’t strong enough at this point to include. The implication being from the statement that when evidence is more robust, assumptions will be adjusted. That is reasonable no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s reasonable as long as it is the same as was applied when delta emerged in India. The variant of concern
posted on 19/12/21
comment by NPE - Finding Timo (U22712)
posted 15 minutes ago
It's ok - I still don't understand why the modelling didn't include scenarios where Omicron was milder.
I also don't grasp why if you are asked to build a model on Omicron severity you don't factor in 95 per cent of the country have antibodies alongside T cell & memory cell resistance.
It is also clear that if the models weren't mean as forecasts, SAGE should have been much less determined to push lockdowns on people and that politicians on both sides of the argument who have been present models as predictions should have been publicly corrected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a weak disclaimer. Like I said, if they aren’t predictions, then give me some fking predictions ffs.
posted on 19/12/21
What I think BH and clearly Medley are refusing to acknowledge is that this ‘inform us of nothing’ is completely wrong. They tell us a lot when it comes to decisions such as keeping WFH going and other guidelines / restrictions.
And I don’t see why Medley didn’t simply reply to Fraser saying that the current SA data wasn’t sufficient to include if that is the case. It’s a perfectly reasonable explanation and somewhat convenient that the cases are included (which being so much more transmissible and therefore high and therefore again encouraging caution) yet the hospitalisations aren’t which from the limited data I’ve read are less scary….hopefully just coincidental and within a couple of weeks (after more restrictions are put in place of course) those numbers will get added in an update.
posted on 19/12/21
comment by NPE - Finding Timo (U22712)
posted 3 hours, 16 minutes ago
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shocking news!
Northern Ireland (as per agreement with EU) fundamentally remains in EU SM to mitigate a North/South border. The ECJ is the ultimate arbitrator of it's own internal market. Which NI is part of.
As NI, (per protocol - pages 20/23 from memory) remains in EU SM, EU/UK agreed that ECJ should be the final and ultimate arbitration mechanism in 2019
Worth noting there are are range of joint committee arrangements, (with representation on both sides) which are designed to ensure joint cooperation and avoid ECJ escalation.
The ECJ (being the final arbitrator) when all other dispute mechanisms have been exhausted, is the final option. And will adjudicate accordingly. In line with EU law. Which the UK government accepted.
Frost then sought to remove ECJ arbitration completely which was never going to be a flyer.
He probably knew that but given the state many in the Conservative party (free market head cases) was always going to be in diffs.
Liz Truss would be best placed listening to and working with NI stakeholders and businesses.
posted on 19/12/21
Did you have to wait until 11.03pm before dropping that on me, mate?
David Frost has been engaged in talks with Sefcovic for months, and the EU has stonewalled any attempts to have independent arbitrators like there are for both the Brexit deal and Withdrawal Agreement.
The agreement on Northern Ireland remaining in the single market and customs union was - in practical terms - always likely to be an arrangement that evolved over time, with also a requirement for discretion and flexibility when it comes to invoking Article 16, or utilising the ECJ.
Would add - that the perception Frost was the pugilistic hard-liner depends on a) highly charitable interpretations of EU behaviour over recent months and b) Boris Johnson being the doormat
I am sceptical of both claims.
Shall we discuss tomorrow? Happy to chat about this.
posted on 19/12/21
"Worth noting there are are range of joint committee arrangements, (with representation on both sides) which are designed to ensure joint cooperation and avoid ECJ escalation."
Do you mean arbitration prior to ECJ involvement - in line with what the EU offered Switzerland?
Sorry - asking for clarity and out of ignorance.
Secondly, I am aware the EU made a very fair concession on medicines relating to Covid-19, although the barriers existing in the first place were a little baffling to me.
posted on 19/12/21
Ok now I do have to go to sleep.
posted on 20/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 7 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 49 seconds ago
The most consistently accurate figures have most often been their lowest figures. Again, this isn’t their fault but christ…
The numbers their modelling pumped out in July, the closest to reality was on the basis of a small and gradual drop in precautionary behaviour over a 3 month period (always with default vaccine efficiency)
Their small change within a one month period had us with around 500 daily deaths in October
So with this latest one if the guardian for example wrote 200 deaths instead of 6000 what do we think the reaction/actions would be?
Has any of their worst case modelling come to pass? Maybe January 2021’s numbers? Maybe they were predicting 5,000 daily deaths for that period, can’t say I remember.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the predictions on deaths in January were fairly close only Cambridge was way off with 4000 daily deaths.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their worst case modelling hasn't come to pass because we haven't followed any worst case scenarios?
It's reported on, and people change their behaviour, the Gov change their advice or introduce some rules, and hey presto worst case scenario is avoided.
People then seemingly point at it and say "HEEEEY, THEY LIED!!!" completely ignoring the fact that it wasn't the scenario that played out.
posted on 20/12/21
comment by NPE - Finding Timo (U22712)
posted 9 hours, 34 minutes ago
I started a 12 hour row
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially amusing as we are debating much ado about nothing really!
posted on 20/12/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
I know you mentioned that we’re at an impasse but can I just clarify that I’m not struggling to understand the point you’re making; it’s really not that difficult to understand.
Where we differ is that you think I want scenarios where no action is to be taken “non-event” whereas removing restrictions is absolutely an action and therefore it is important to include such data. If the government specifically requested not to include any data from SA and insisted that omicron be treated as fatal as delta for a specific query then I’m fine with that as long as these numbers aren’t pumped through the media and used to prep people for more restrictions.
Like this for example which I know BMCL will hate:
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/18/uk-scientists-curbs-covid-infections-omicron-deaths-restrictions-sage
Medley says that these aren’t predictions, that they are illustrations of possibilities and uncertainty. So why not include the SA data?
Anecdotally (yes I know that doesn’t hold much weight but perhaps others have encountered the same), I known a fair few people now to have caught covid recently and tested negative within 7 days which I had never heard before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So your problem is that they did not include a model which includes removing restrictions? For the sake of balance and fairness? ~~ No my point is that they should have included the data available from SA into their modelling as a separate line across the graphs.
Of course removing restrictions are actions, but we are talking about decisions based on 'mitigating' high severity risks, and the respective models for them. ~~why are not also including data into these models to show lower risks? Why always focus on the highest risk levels, it’s not just blind curiosity, these numbers are used for something
And removing measures is a very different kind analysis. It's not about mitigating number of cases, but about trying to reestablish normalcy in society.
~~ justifying the action of removing restrictions is absolutely based on the numbers
I am not sure why though it would need to be included right now. And thats why I feel we are at an impasse. ~~ because omicron is clearly the new kid on block on the available data should be included. There is already a huge amount of guesswork involved hence the regularly disclaimers they graffiti all over their documents so why not pump the omicron data through their models also? It’s still not a prediction, right?
I don't think it's persuasive to say that it adds useful information right now to the government. It would miss the point completely. ~~ miss what point? The point of mainly focusing on worst case, worse case and bad case only? And refusing to use the current data on omicron? Sorry but that makes no sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Replies above mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmm... I am not a huge fan of this posting style - as adding anything else just gets messy?!
I think in general your argument: is why not include data showing low severity risks, and only high severity.
So we can possibly agree that low severity means - reducing restrictions or making no further ones.
So why are they not making models for either outcomes?
Its very simple really - we are looking at an influx of cases. These more optimistic models are made usually when cases are going down. The government wants to see if this will be risky period, and what to do to combat it. The government needs to make plans for bad scenarios, which require them to enact policy.
Not bad scenarios either just mean reversing decisions or policy of the past, or doing nothing.
Lastly, I should add that I find all this very reasonable. Not every possible world scenario needs to be modelled and represented. And it's very normal for science to narrow down to focus on one thing.
posted on 20/12/21
Every possible world scenario? Ok best leave it there if you’re going down that road
posted on 20/12/21
Is missing 3 COBRA meetings in a row a dereliction of duty?
posted on 20/12/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 4 hours, 55 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 7 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 49 seconds ago
The most consistently accurate figures have most often been their lowest figures. Again, this isn’t their fault but christ…
The numbers their modelling pumped out in July, the closest to reality was on the basis of a small and gradual drop in precautionary behaviour over a 3 month period (always with default vaccine efficiency)
Their small change within a one month period had us with around 500 daily deaths in October
So with this latest one if the guardian for example wrote 200 deaths instead of 6000 what do we think the reaction/actions would be?
Has any of their worst case modelling come to pass? Maybe January 2021’s numbers? Maybe they were predicting 5,000 daily deaths for that period, can’t say I remember.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the predictions on deaths in January were fairly close only Cambridge was way off with 4000 daily deaths.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Their worst case modelling hasn't come to pass because we haven't followed any worst case scenarios?
It's reported on, and people change their behaviour, the Gov change their advice or introduce some rules, and hey presto worst case scenario is avoided.
People then seemingly point at it and say "HEEEEY, THEY LIED!!!" completely ignoring the fact that it wasn't the scenario that played out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes this point was made clear in the (yuck) spectator article I shared pages and pages ago.
posted on 20/12/21
How many of you are actually working from home?
I'm just wondering if half the arguments are academic desktop exercises as opposed to those of us that are having to actually go out, go into buildings, mix with strangers, use public transport etc. and then go home to our families.
posted on 20/12/21
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 9 hours, 24 minutes ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
I know you mentioned that we’re at an impasse but can I just clarify that I’m not struggling to understand the point you’re making; it’s really not that difficult to understand.
Where we differ is that you think I want scenarios where no action is to be taken “non-event” whereas removing restrictions is absolutely an action and therefore it is important to include such data. If the government specifically requested not to include any data from SA and insisted that omicron be treated as fatal as delta for a specific query then I’m fine with that as long as these numbers aren’t pumped through the media and used to prep people for more restrictions.
Like this for example which I know BMCL will hate:
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/18/uk-scientists-curbs-covid-infections-omicron-deaths-restrictions-sage
Medley says that these aren’t predictions, that they are illustrations of possibilities and uncertainty. So why not include the SA data?
Anecdotally (yes I know that doesn’t hold much weight but perhaps others have encountered the same), I known a fair few people now to have caught covid recently and tested negative within 7 days which I had never heard before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So your problem is that they did not include a model which includes removing restrictions? For the sake of balance and fairness? ~~ No my point is that they should have included the data available from SA into their modelling as a separate line across the graphs.
Of course removing restrictions are actions, but we are talking about decisions based on 'mitigating' high severity risks, and the respective models for them. ~~why are not also including data into these models to show lower risks? Why always focus on the highest risk levels, it’s not just blind curiosity, these numbers are used for something
And removing measures is a very different kind analysis. It's not about mitigating number of cases, but about trying to reestablish normalcy in society.
~~ justifying the action of removing restrictions is absolutely based on the numbers
I am not sure why though it would need to be included right now. And thats why I feel we are at an impasse. ~~ because omicron is clearly the new kid on block on the available data should be included. There is already a huge amount of guesswork involved hence the regularly disclaimers they graffiti all over their documents so why not pump the omicron data through their models also? It’s still not a prediction, right?
I don't think it's persuasive to say that it adds useful information right now to the government. It would miss the point completely. ~~ miss what point? The point of mainly focusing on worst case, worse case and bad case only? And refusing to use the current data on omicron? Sorry but that makes no sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Replies above mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmm... I am not a huge fan of this posting style - as adding anything else just gets messy?!
I think in general your argument: is why not include data showing low severity risks, and only high severity.
So we can possibly agree that low severity means - reducing restrictions or making no further ones.
So why are they not making models for either outcomes?
Its very simple really - we are looking at an influx of cases. These more optimistic models are made usually when cases are going down. The government wants to see if this will be risky period, and what to do to combat it. The government needs to make plans for bad scenarios, which require them to enact policy.
Not bad scenarios either just mean reversing decisions or policy of the past, or doing nothing.
Lastly, I should add that I find all this very reasonable. Not every possible world scenario needs to be modelled and represented. And it's very normal for science to narrow down to focus on one thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stress and scenario testing in financial institutions won’t spend any time, or even generate and share results, down at the “optimistic “ end of the spectrum. The modelling approach adopted through SPI-o-m is entirely consistent with this approach. And note when I say financial institutions I mean financial models and demographic (mortality/morbidity) models.
The only time one might if one predicted that the distribution had kinks (steady now lads) where it in effect looped back on itself. I don’t get a sense from methodology shared that this is the case here.
posted on 20/12/21
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 5 minutes ago
Is missing 3 COBRA meetings in a row a dereliction of duty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is wanting to distance himself from having to take difficult decisions that will upset his remaining base (Russian bots aside).
posted on 20/12/21
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 minutes ago
How many of you are actually working from home?
I'm just wondering if half the arguments are academic desktop exercises as opposed to those of us that are having to actually go out, go into buildings, mix with strangers, use public transport etc. and then go home to our families.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm having to work on site this week. I work in pharma manufacturing though, so don't work from home in lockdowns anyway. Always have to be hybrid and prepared to go in.
posted on 20/12/21
More parties as breaking news today.
Boris in his garden with 17 others during the first lockdown eating cheese and wine. "Not a party we are told, it was a business meeting"
Now cast your mind back to the Allegra Stratton recording. Doesnt she joke "it wasn't a party, it was cheese and wine" ?
Maybe I'm reading too much in to it, but that doesn't seem coincidental, it seems like knowledge of such activities was widespread and joked about.
posted on 20/12/21
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 6 minutes ago
How many of you are actually working from home?
I'm just wondering if half the arguments are academic desktop exercises as opposed to those of us that are having to actually go out, go into buildings, mix with strangers, use public transport etc. and then go home to our families.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't deliver post from home.. I do get to mix in close quarters with 45 others each morning though, then do my job and go home to my clinically vulnerable father.
I'm in favour of measures to protect people's health, and to prevent the NHS cancelling services.
posted on 20/12/21
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 minutes ago
How many of you are actually working from home?
I'm just wondering if half the arguments are academic desktop exercises as opposed to those of us that are having to actually go out, go into buildings, mix with strangers, use public transport etc. and then go home to our families.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm having to work on site this week. I work in pharma manufacturing though, so don't work from home in lockdowns anyway. Always have to be hybrid and prepared to go in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Working from home as is my wife. We go down to have lunch and/or on our local high street a few times a week, and in general the high street here is busier than it would be when I worked from home pre-pandemic. Neither of us has tested positive or been pinged during the pandemic.
posted on 20/12/21
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 13 hours, 36 minutes ago
I think a mistake people often have is assuming there is a political agenda behind all things.
Theres corruption in the world, but sadly most things are much more mundane!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My take from that conversation was that of what Medley was saying was as sinister as it’s been claimed (that SAGE are basically asked to run models that will result in lockdowns etc), then he obviously wouldn’t be chatting about it with a journalist on Twitter. It was probably more complex than the discussion made it seem but I don’t think he got his explanations across very well, for whatever reason.
posted on 20/12/21
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by Black Hawk (U16342)
posted 13 hours, 36 minutes ago
I think a mistake people often have is assuming there is a political agenda behind all things.
Theres corruption in the world, but sadly most things are much more mundane!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My take from that conversation was that of what Medley was saying was as sinister as it’s been claimed (that SAGE are basically asked to run models that will result in lockdowns etc), then he obviously wouldn’t be chatting about it with a journalist on Twitter. It was probably more complex than the discussion made it seem but I don’t think he got his explanations across very well, for whatever reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And I’ll repeat, he was repeating what he had said, in an article, in the spectator, in October.
posted on 20/12/21
Does anyone NOT know someone with covid now?
People at work dropping like flies... My whole team off, looks like I'm a glorified receptionist until 2022
posted on 20/12/21
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 24 seconds ago
Does anyone NOT know someone with covid now?
People at work dropping like flies... My whole team off, looks like I'm a glorified receptionist until 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can replace my Secretary if you like
posted on 20/12/21
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 3 minutes ago
How many of you are actually working from home?
I'm just wondering if half the arguments are academic desktop exercises as opposed to those of us that are having to actually go out, go into buildings, mix with strangers, use public transport etc. and then go home to our families.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm having to work on site this week. I work in pharma manufacturing though, so don't work from home in lockdowns anyway. Always have to be hybrid and prepared to go in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m generally not working at home, I hate it.
Page 2103 of 6156
2104 | 2105 | 2106 | 2107 | 2108