If I knapped a dildo that was consistently eight times too big, I'd be out of a job, and probably being sued for injuries to clients
At what point do the boffins admit they have a systemic problem? They need to be confronted, they need to explain these endless negativist errors
The problem isn’t SAGE or the models, it’s how they are presented. The worst case scenario is frequently presented as “SAGE forecast” rather than the central. Cavers about uncertainty / limited data are just glossed over.
Or the models are taken out of context, eg a model predicting the profile of cases if a lockdown is not imposed is then compared to the post lockdown numbers and shown to be “wrong”
Most of this is the fault of the media. Some of it lies for the scientists for not communicating effectively.
It appears that the media's motto is 'if you aren't terrified, we aren't doing our job'
Sponsors of the recall effort have said they do NOT plan to request a recount.
Kshama Sawant is the most recent, and among the most prominent, of Seattle's long line of stormy petrels in politics. For example, Marion Zioncheck, a radical New Deal congressman with a meteoric political career but who suffered from (it appears) bipolar illness and ended up jumping out of the window of his 5th-floor office in the Arctic Building in downtown Seattle.
Like Zioncheck, Sawant is an immigrant (he from Poland, she from India) and an avowed socialist; however, she is a Trotskyist while he was Democrat, both small d & Big D. Sawant is local leader of Socialist Alternative, an offshoot or something similar from Militant Tendency.
Bottom line here is that Kshama Sawant has survived a grueling and expensive (over $1 million spent by her opponents AND ditto by her) mid-term near-death experience, politically speaking.
How did she win? Thanks to her well-organized, well-heeled and well-drilled grassroots political machine. Actually astroturf in a way, because backbone is paid organizers. However, Sawant's machine is tapping, and she is inspiring, a strong vein of progressivism in the cities most leftwing district, with lots of young(ish) renters, albeit with a strong component of somewhat older and more moderate (by Seattle standards) homeowners.
One tactic that Sawant used, and which no doubt saved her hide, was setting up printers on street corners in lower Capitol Hill & vicinity, so that voters could print out their ballots and vote them on the spot. Recall sponsors and supporters naturally had some concerns about this.
However, ballot printing on request outside of election offices has been available in Washington State for a while, and is thus nothing new under the sun, and is used by all kinds of voters who either never got or (more likely) misplaced or lost the ballot mailed to them.
Further note that before ANY ballot returned is accepted for counting, the voter signature on the outside envelope is checked by election workers against the signature on file.
In fact, in this very special election, total of 491 returned ballots were NOT counted, the lion's share because sigs did NOT match or the ballot was unsigned; note that these folks were notified (including in some cases by one or the other or even both campaigns) and given a chance to submit required sigs or other info. Indeed, many voters whose ballots were initially "challenged" did just that, their ballots were "cured" and thus counted.
If I knapped a dildo that was consistently eight times too big, I'd be out of a job, and probably being sued for injuries to clients
At what point do the boffins admit they have a systemic problem? They need to be confronted, they need to explain these endless negativist errors
The problem isn’t SAGE or the models, it’s how they are presented. The worst case scenario is frequently presented as “SAGE forecast” rather than the central. Cavers about uncertainty / limited data are just glossed over.
Or the models are taken out of context, eg a model predicting the profile of cases if a lockdown is not imposed is then compared to the post lockdown numbers and shown to be “wrong”
Most of this is the fault of the media. Some of it lies for the scientists for not communicating effectively.
While the media are consistently crap, the claim it is just the worst cade scenario is way out, this isn't even true.....their median forecasts have consistently been way out....hell even the most optimistics as well....
Those of us who do mathematical modelling for a living have consistently pointed clear flaws with their models.
I don't envy anyone trying to forecast the impact of a novel virus in a pandemic. So many variables are at play, not least human reaction to a new disease, which is intrinsically imponderable
However we do now have a track record of clear failure from Sage & Co, and nearly always towards over-pessimism. I hope the government has other advisors, for a balanced view
If I knapped a dildo that was consistently eight times too big, I'd be out of a job, and probably being sued for injuries to clients
At what point do the boffins admit they have a systemic problem? They need to be confronted, they need to explain these endless negativist errors
The problem isn’t SAGE or the models, it’s how they are presented. The worst case scenario is frequently presented as “SAGE forecast” rather than the central. Cavers about uncertainty / limited data are just glossed over.
Or the models are taken out of context, eg a model predicting the profile of cases if a lockdown is not imposed is then compared to the post lockdown numbers and shown to be “wrong”
Most of this is the fault of the media. Some of it lies for the scientists for not communicating effectively.
Same phenomena are exhibited with climate change, anything environmental and many medical topics. It is probably the biggest challenge facing us.
One thing though and maybe a lesson in the debate of compulsion vs persusaion. The response of the public to the booster scheme and advice to cut the contacts looks to have been notably compliant. Maybe we should trust the public more.
Most people are enthusiastic about the vaccines because they have already bought into the idea that they greatly reduce the chances of your getting really ill. There's no particular reason why demand for boosters should drop off.
Hiding at home, on the other hand, will be the product of some who are frightened of the virus and others who want to avoid self-isolation at Christmas. The poor, battered pubs and restaurants will be hoping that the latter group comes back once they're in danger of being forced not to go to work, rather than of being forced to abandon the family get together.
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
Sponsors of the recall effort have said they do NOT plan to request a recount.
Kshama Sawant is the most recent, and among the most prominent, of Seattle's long line of stormy petrels in politics. For example, Marion Zioncheck, a radical New Deal congressman with a meteoric political career but who suffered from (it appears) bipolar illness and ended up jumping out of the window of his 5th-floor office in the Arctic Building in downtown Seattle.
Like Zioncheck, Sawant is an immigrant (he from Poland, she from India) and an avowed socialist; however, she is a Trotskyist while he was Democrat, both small d & Big D. Sawant is local leader of Socialist Alternative, an offshoot or something similar from Militant Tendency.
Bottom line here is that Kshama Sawant has survived a grueling and expensive (over $1 million spent by her opponents AND ditto by her) mid-term near-death experience, politically speaking.
How did she win? Thanks to her well-organized, well-heeled and well-drilled grassroots political machine. Actually astroturf in a way, because backbone is paid organizers. However, Sawant's machine is tapping, and she is inspiring, a strong vein of progressivism in the cities most leftwing district, with lots of young(ish) renters, albeit with a strong component of somewhat older and more moderate (by Seattle standards) homeowners.
One tactic that Sawant used, and which no doubt saved her hide, was setting up printers on street corners in lower Capitol Hill & vicinity, so that voters could print out their ballots and vote them on the spot. Recall sponsors and supporters naturally had some concerns about this.
However, ballot printing on request outside of election offices has been available in Washington State for a while, and is thus nothing new under the sun, and is used by all kinds of voters who either never got or (more likely) misplaced or lost the ballot mailed to them.
Further note that before ANY ballot returned is accepted for counting, the voter signature on the outside envelope is checked by election workers against the signature on file.
In fact, in this very special election, total of 491 returned ballots were NOT counted, the lion's share because sigs did NOT match or the ballot was unsigned; note that these folks were notified (including in some cases by one or the other or even both campaigns) and given a chance to submit required sigs or other info. Indeed, many voters whose ballots were initially "challenged" did just that, their ballots were "cured" and thus counted.
Interesting glimpse of a political scene that I'd guess most of us know nothing about - thanks!
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
If I knapped a dildo that was consistently eight times too big, I'd be out of a job, and probably being sued for injuries to clients
At what point do the boffins admit they have a systemic problem? They need to be confronted, they need to explain these endless negativist errors
The problem isn’t SAGE or the models, it’s how they are presented. The worst case scenario is frequently presented as “SAGE forecast” rather than the central. Cavers about uncertainty / limited data are just glossed over.
Or the models are taken out of context, eg a model predicting the profile of cases if a lockdown is not imposed is then compared to the post lockdown numbers and shown to be “wrong”
Most of this is the fault of the media. Some of it lies for the scientists for not communicating effectively.
While the media are consistently crap, the claim it is just the worst cade scenario is way out, this isn't even true.....their median forecasts have consistently been way out....hell even the most optimistics as well....
Those of us who do mathematical modelling for a living have consistently pointed clear flaws with their models.
I don't envy anyone trying to forecast the impact of a novel virus in a pandemic. So many variables are at play, not least human reaction to a new disease, which is intrinsically imponderable
However we do now have a track record of clear failure from Sage & Co, and nearly always towards over-pessimism. I hope the government has other advisors, for a balanced view
I suspect that the political calculus might be moderating factor vs the scientists who are, by default, are not going to roll the dice.
There is one route to cut the hospitalisations dramatically. Tell everyone over 70 to isolate. Would anyone have the cojones?
One thing though and maybe a lesson in the debate of compulsion vs persusaion. The response of the public to the booster scheme and advice to cut the contacts looks to have been notably compliant. Maybe we should trust the public more.
Most people are enthusiastic about the vaccines because they have already bought into the idea that they greatly reduce the chances of your getting really ill. There's no particular reason why demand for boosters should drop off.
You're not wrong, but I think I am beginning to detect signs of a bit of vaccine-weariness in certain people, a bit of a dislike to a situation where we're constantly being harangued to get more jabs but it doesn't really make life go back to normal.
If we get boosters and thoughts then more or less begin to turn towards dose 4 (and 5? and 6?) almost immediately next year I suspect a few people are going to start to grumble about it a bit louder. I'm not saying it would be particularly widespread at this point, but I detect an element of "jabs in perpetuity" isn't going to cut it with a certain section of the (generally younger) population, particularly not with everything else still being not really that close to normal.
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
How sure are we that most of SAGE hasn’t been compromised by kompramat and dancing to Vlad’s tune?!
I rather worry that Vlad is going to be so totally stuffed by Omnicron that he's going to want a big patriotic distraction to divert attention from it....
The track record of SAGE is that every time we’ve followed their advice we have saved lives
That would be true of a scientific committee that said "from now on, no one must ever climb a ladder; nor can anyone use a knife at home, play any sport, have sex with strangers, or go on holiday to anywhere outside German-speaking Switzerland"
Every time you followed their advice, you would save thousands of lives. Would we follow their insane advice? Of course not
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
Mystic Meg or Roger could guess better ranges for those peak deaths predictions.
My PhD supervisor would have laughed me out of his office if I had produced models like that.
But no one is going to sue SAGE for getting it wrong when they say, Well, you could peak at 600 dead a day, or you could get 6,000, so I don't have a fucking clue really, and that's my official forecast, now decide your policy
I would say that Raab is at the end of his political career. Along with Suella Braverman, he has taken on the humiliating and undignified role of driving through all the bad legal reforms that the tories have brewed up over the last decade; and have been thwarted by every lawyer they have previously appointed to deliver them. So by taking on this demotion, he has hitched himself to the sinking ship of Boris Johnson; and destroyed his reputation amongst lawyers, his first profession. There isn't going to be any lucrative Geoffrey Cox style retirement for Dominic Raab. He should have rejected the Justice job given the obvious conditions attached. He would have got a lot more respect and could have rebuilt his reputation on the back benches.
So number of boosters has stalled in the 800,000s per day and actually fell today… does this reflect a capacity constraint or is demand beginning to fall back after the opening-up-to-all at the beginning of the week… what more can the Government do to scare encourage more to do the right thing…
One thing though and maybe a lesson in the debate of compulsion vs persusaion. The response of the public to the booster scheme and advice to cut the contacts looks to have been notably compliant. Maybe we should trust the public more.
Most people are enthusiastic about the vaccines because they have already bought into the idea that they greatly reduce the chances of your getting really ill. There's no particular reason why demand for boosters should drop off.
You're not wrong, but I think I am beginning to detect signs of a bit of vaccine-weariness in certain people, a bit of a dislike to a situation where we're constantly being harangued to get more jabs but it doesn't really make life go back to normal.
If we get boosters and thoughts then more or less begin to turn towards dose 4 (and 5? and 6?) almost immediately next year I suspect a few people are going to start to grumble about it a bit louder. I'm not saying it would be particularly widespread at this point, but I detect an element of "jabs in perpetuity" isn't going to cut it with a certain section of the (generally younger) population, particularly not with everything else still being not really that close to normal.
I made this EXACT point to a Doctor couple the other day.
They didn't get it at all.
Nor did they understand that we can't afford more lockdowns.
They are both tremendous and lovely people. They're thoughtful and loving. BUT I think there is, sadly, a real disconnect between the realities of life and the views of many in the medical profession.
One thing though and maybe a lesson in the debate of compulsion vs persusaion. The response of the public to the booster scheme and advice to cut the contacts looks to have been notably compliant. Maybe we should trust the public more.
Most people are enthusiastic about the vaccines because they have already bought into the idea that they greatly reduce the chances of your getting really ill. There's no particular reason why demand for boosters should drop off.
You're not wrong, but I think I am beginning to detect signs of a bit of vaccine-weariness in certain people, a bit of a dislike to a situation where we're constantly being harangued to get more jabs but it doesn't really make life go back to normal.
If we get boosters and thoughts then more or less begin to turn towards dose 4 (and 5? and 6?) almost immediately next year I suspect a few people are going to start to grumble about it a bit louder. I'm not saying it would be particularly widespread at this point, but I detect an element of "jabs in perpetuity" isn't going to cut it with a certain section of the (generally younger) population, particularly not with everything else still being not really that close to normal.
There is that to be considered, though FWIW if most of the bored minority turn out to be twenty and thirty somethings, who already have some immunity (from jabs or jabs + infection) in the bank, then it's unlikely to make a huge amount of difference to anything.
One thing though and maybe a lesson in the debate of compulsion vs persusaion. The response of the public to the booster scheme and advice to cut the contacts looks to have been notably compliant. Maybe we should trust the public more.
Most people are enthusiastic about the vaccines because they have already bought into the idea that they greatly reduce the chances of your getting really ill. There's no particular reason why demand for boosters should drop off.
You're not wrong, but I think I am beginning to detect signs of a bit of vaccine-weariness in certain people, a bit of a dislike to a situation where we're constantly being harangued to get more jabs but it doesn't really make life go back to normal.
If we get boosters and thoughts then more or less begin to turn towards dose 4 (and 5? and 6?) almost immediately next year I suspect a few people are going to start to grumble about it a bit louder. I'm not saying it would be particularly widespread at this point, but I detect an element of "jabs in perpetuity" isn't going to cut it with a certain section of the (generally younger) population, particularly not with everything else still being not really that close to normal.
There is that to be considered, though FWIW if most of the bored minority turn out to be twenty and thirty somethings, who already have some immunity (from jabs or jabs + infection) in the bank, then it's unlikely to make a huge amount of difference to anything.
My somewhat anti-vaxx mother and grandmother took a fair bit of convincing to get the first two and even more to get boosters. I can't see much prospect of them signing up for much more.
Sponsors of the recall effort have said they do NOT plan to request a recount.
Kshama Sawant is the most recent, and among the most prominent, of Seattle's long line of stormy petrels in politics. For example, Marion Zioncheck, a radical New Deal congressman with a meteoric political career but who suffered from (it appears) bipolar illness and ended up jumping out of the window of his 5th-floor office in the Arctic Building in downtown Seattle.
Like Zioncheck, Sawant is an immigrant (he from Poland, she from India) and an avowed socialist; however, she is a Trotskyist while he was Democrat, both small d & Big D. Sawant is local leader of Socialist Alternative, an offshoot or something similar from Militant Tendency.
Bottom line here is that Kshama Sawant has survived a grueling and expensive (over $1 million spent by her opponents AND ditto by her) mid-term near-death experience, politically speaking.
How did she win? Thanks to her well-organized, well-heeled and well-drilled grassroots political machine. Actually astroturf in a way, because backbone is paid organizers. However, Sawant's machine is tapping, and she is inspiring, a strong vein of progressivism in the cities most leftwing district, with lots of young(ish) renters, albeit with a strong component of somewhat older and more moderate (by Seattle standards) homeowners.
One tactic that Sawant used, and which no doubt saved her hide, was setting up printers on street corners in lower Capitol Hill & vicinity, so that voters could print out their ballots and vote them on the spot. Recall sponsors and supporters naturally had some concerns about this.
However, ballot printing on request outside of election offices has been available in Washington State for a while, and is thus nothing new under the sun, and is used by all kinds of voters who either never got or (more likely) misplaced or lost the ballot mailed to them.
Further note that before ANY ballot returned is accepted for counting, the voter signature on the outside envelope is checked by election workers against the signature on file.
In fact, in this very special election, total of 491 returned ballots were NOT counted, the lion's share because sigs did NOT match or the ballot was unsigned; note that these folks were notified (including in some cases by one or the other or even both campaigns) and given a chance to submit required sigs or other info. Indeed, many voters whose ballots were initially "challenged" did just that, their ballots were "cured" and thus counted.
Interesting glimpse of a political scene that I'd guess most of us know nothing about - thanks!
BTW here is Kshama Sawant's performance in Seattle District 3, in 3 general elections and the recall special election, all for city council, the first against an incumbent, others AS the incumbent:
Looks like just over a million jabs a day is probably going to be max.
They won't make target / aspiration, but will get a hell of a lot done.
It was a stupid target
The purpose of a target is to push yourself towards it.
If things had been left to the NHS we would still be down at 200k per day.
It is the Tories' fault we're in the booster hole, they spent all Summer doing sod all
Given what we now know about boosters, if we had boostered oldies in the summer, we would be doing them again now.
Should we have done kids during the summer holidays. Yes. But JCVI recommendations said no.
Should we have done oldies slightly earlier and faster, and a wider group of oldies. Yes. But JCVI rules recommendations said no.
You partisanship some times is way OTT.
Why am only I attacked for partisanship even when I'm making a fairly reasonable point? I don't see you attacking Tories
In this specific instance it isn't reasonable to expect a government to overturn the decision of an independent medical advisory committee. No sensible politician would, otherwise you get into Trump territory of advising bleach and giving anti-vaxxer massive amounts of ammunition.
I have spent the past 2 years consistently pointing out the dumb shit the government have done time and time again. Go and check my 60k posts, there are absolutely loads of posts saying, FFS Boris has bottled a lockdown, he is leaving it too late. I was also massively critical of the idea of the tier system. I said we should have had border restrictions straight away during March 2020....I advocated for the sort of scheme Australia have employed....I said the government needed to kick SAGE up the arse in the summer and have them actually making a plan, when in fact they didn't meet for 2 months...
I could go on and on and on.
Agreed. The truth is, we don't know how bad Omicron will be. With vaccines the landing point for hospitalisations and serious illness is likely to be between somewhat better than Delta without vaccines and somewhat worse. That's what serious and informed people investigating this are coming up with, not all of whom can be dismissed because they don't accord with our prejudices.
If we collectively think we are not prepared to do another lockdown and will take whatever Omicron throws at us, that's a valid decision to make. But let's not say, we're not doing another lockdown, and then do it anyway as the hospital system buckles under the strain.
But the totally INFURIATING thing is that UKG has made virtually no attempt to punish, tax or chide the antivaxxers into getting the jab. They are the reason we are back in the shit. Look at @foxy's post today - every Covid victim in his ICU is unvaxxed
WHY is the government so totally spineless on this issue? Fear of being seen as racist? Fear of the "libertarian lobby"?
Before they make my life miserable, and condemn my kids to more damaged mental health, perhaps the fucking government could tackle the people who are causing all this shit, rather than jailing absolutely everyone
I like the idea of a COVID NHS tax at 1% per year to help the NHS pay for COVID care which is refunded to people when they reach fully vaccinated status. That would get loads of people in the door as getting the vaccine is being linked to helping the NHS, lots of people still haven't made that connection.
I suspect quite a few of the unvaxxed aren't paying tax... including children of course.
The real answer is make it hard to go places / do things. Restrict the unvaccinated* as you would smokers, with a few exceptions (hospitals, schools, can't think on many others tbh).
It's going to happen eventually anyway, so why delay?
(*With an exemption cert for thos that can't be vaccinated of course.)
Because it won't help. The most likely unvaccinated person who might end up in hospital is going to be a 60-70 year old South Asian Muslim who doesn't drink, doesn't smoke and doesn't go to the pub, theatre, non-Halal restaurants, shops at the local Asian shop run by one of his mates who also doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, doesn't go to the pub, theatre or non-Halal restaurants.
Vaccine passports might get a few extra under 40s to get vaccinated, sure, but that's not going to change the healthcare situation. They will do precisely zero to get those over 60s who are unvaccinated into the funnel. The unvaccinated in these cohorts will not be inconvenienced by them because nowhere they go need them or will bother implementing them.
Vaccine passports are another one of those "let's look like we're doing something" measures. A tax at least raises some money.
Yes, but as a few people point out there, if I go to the pub and I look under-age (obviously not now but back in the day), I was ID’d. No one said “you’re infringing on my civil liberties” or “it’s a disgrace”, you accepted it. No ID, no drink.
I suspect the howls of outrage from certain areas are because they realise they benefit from certain “loose” practices.
You'd be wrong but sort-of right in reverse. The reason photo ID for voting is proposed is that it was thought (I say "was" because some Tory analysts had a rethink after the red wall fell) to favour the blue team whose prosperous voters, by and large, already have photo ID whereas poorer left-leaning groups are less likely to own passports or driving licences. And there is no evidence of personation in British elections (outside Northern Ireland). There is voting fraud but largely around postal votes and not personation.
No doubt the Tories thought this. When they actually piloted it at the local elections a few years back it was chiefly the elderly Tory voter that were being prevented from voting. if you are too disorganised too get passport/driving license if young you are unlikely to be on the electoral roll in the first place.
If they try and cancel Christmas by bringing in some kind of lockdown, then its pretty clear to me that people aren't going to comply.
It's a bit of a Catch 22 for Boris.
If he brings in Nu Lockdown before Christmas he will be the most unpopular Briton in history, if he waits until after Xmas it is arguably too late and will do nothing - except grave economic harm. But can he brazen out and resist the boffins?
Regarding the conversation about Sunak in the previous thread, I think being independently wealthy is a plus - it makes the candidate less susceptible to grifting opportunities. Thatcher was wealthy through her spouse.
You clearly haven't met the same sort of rich people as I have.
I think the previous presidential family gives a more accurate impression. I don't think the Left could have imagined a better example of how the super rich don't deserve their wealth.
Trump is not that representative of the wealthy. He is representative of the New York real estate community
If they try and cancel Christmas by bringing in some kind of lockdown, then its pretty clear to me that people aren't going to comply.
It's a bit of a Catch 22 for Boris.
If he brings in Nu Lockdown before Christmas he will be the most unpopular Briton in history, if he waits until after Xmas it is arguably too late and will do nothing - except grave economic harm. But can he brazen out and resist the boffins?
They need someone in the Cabinet asking the questions Fraser Nelson has been asking:
One thing though and maybe a lesson in the debate of compulsion vs persusaion. The response of the public to the booster scheme and advice to cut the contacts looks to have been notably compliant. Maybe we should trust the public more.
Most people are enthusiastic about the vaccines because they have already bought into the idea that they greatly reduce the chances of your getting really ill. There's no particular reason why demand for boosters should drop off.
You're not wrong, but I think I am beginning to detect signs of a bit of vaccine-weariness in certain people, a bit of a dislike to a situation where we're constantly being harangued to get more jabs but it doesn't really make life go back to normal.
If we get boosters and thoughts then more or less begin to turn towards dose 4 (and 5? and 6?) almost immediately next year I suspect a few people are going to start to grumble about it a bit louder. I'm not saying it would be particularly widespread at this point, but I detect an element of "jabs in perpetuity" isn't going to cut it with a certain section of the (generally younger) population, particularly not with everything else still being not really that close to normal.
I made this EXACT point to a Doctor couple the other day.
They didn't get it at all.
Nor did they understand that we can't afford more lockdowns.
They are both tremendous and lovely people. They're thoughtful and loving. BUT I think there is, sadly, a real disconnect between the realities of life and the views of many in the medical profession.
Which is why decisions about the economy, social and cultural life should not be left in the hands of medical, scientific and public health experts. This is the job of our elected politicians (taking into account advice from those experts AND experts in economics, social health, culture, and other sectors), regardless of what we think of them. They should do it.
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
The ranges on those predictions are laughable. How can anyone possibly make an informed decision based on them if those are the 95% CIs.
Realistically can we make informed decisions on a disease that has been known about for 3 weeks. Policymakers have to make uninformed decisions here, and wide confidence intervals seem appropriate even if far from ideal.
Lockdown after christmas is a bit after the Lord Mayor's show I think ? Not that we should lock down mind.
It wouldn't actually matter of ministers thought that it was completely useless, they'd probably still do it.
The Government won't leave the hospitals to burn without demonstrating that they've taken all practical measures to prevent that outcome. It's evidently not enough for Boris Johnson to tell us that there is no point in lockdown because it won't work. It has to be seen to fail in practice.
Hi Graham. I guess the question is why LSHTM did not (like JP Morgan) include a scenario of lower virulence - given that this is a very-plausible option that changes outlook massively. See below...
Regarding the conversation about Sunak in the previous thread, I think being independently wealthy is a plus - it makes the candidate less susceptible to grifting opportunities. Thatcher was wealthy through her spouse.
You clearly haven't met the same sort of rich people as I have.
I think the previous presidential family gives a more accurate impression. I don't think the Left could have imagined a better example of how the super rich don't deserve their wealth.
Trump is not that representative of the wealthy. He is representative of the New York real estate community
Or rather, a sub-section of the NYC real estate community, looked upon askance by (slightly) more-moral land pirates?
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
The ranges on those predictions are laughable. How can anyone possibly make an informed decision based on them if those are the 95% CIs.
Realistically can we make informed decisions on a disease that has been known about for 3 weeks. Policymakers have to make uninformed decisions here, and wide confidence intervals seem appropriate even if far from ideal.
True, but should government be presented with only worst case scenarios - which appears to be the case?
If they try and cancel Christmas by bringing in some kind of lockdown, then its pretty clear to me that people aren't going to comply.
It's a bit of a Catch 22 for Boris.
If he brings in Nu Lockdown before Christmas he will be the most unpopular Briton in history, if he waits until after Xmas it is arguably too late and will do nothing - except grave economic harm. But can he brazen out and resist the boffins?
I have a one year on postponed 25th Wedding Anniversary on the 22nd at an exclusive TV Chef run establishment. Last year it was cancelled on the 19th. What is the probability that I make it this year?
If they try and cancel Christmas by bringing in some kind of lockdown, then its pretty clear to me that people aren't going to comply.
It's a bit of a Catch 22 for Boris.
If he brings in Nu Lockdown before Christmas he will be the most unpopular Briton in history, if he waits until after Xmas it is arguably too late and will do nothing - except grave economic harm. But can he brazen out and resist the boffins?
They need someone in the Cabinet asking the questions Fraser Nelson has been asking:
In fairness to the modellers it looks like they are being asked "what's the worst that could happen" and answering that question.
They need to be asked better questions.
That's quite a remarkable dialogue. The SAGE guy does not come across too well. Haughty, prickly; like a 19th century bishop. These people have been stuffed with self-importance
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
The ranges on those predictions are laughable. How can anyone possibly make an informed decision based on them if those are the 95% CIs.
Realistically can we make informed decisions on a disease that has been known about for 3 weeks. Policymakers have to make uninformed decisions here, and wide confidence intervals seem appropriate even if far from ideal.
True, but should government be presented with only worst case scenarios - which appears to be the case?
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
The ranges on those predictions are laughable. How can anyone possibly make an informed decision based on them if those are the 95% CIs.
Realistically can we make informed decisions on a disease that has been known about for 3 weeks. Policymakers have to make uninformed decisions here, and wide confidence intervals seem appropriate even if far from ideal.
True, but should government be presented with only worst case scenarios - which appears to be the case?
The messages I'm getting from that table are that 1) it that it makes no difference what we do, and 2) the modellers have attached allowed such great uncertainty around their inputs that you shouldn't be making any decisions based on the results anyway.
If they try and cancel Christmas by bringing in some kind of lockdown, then its pretty clear to me that people aren't going to comply.
It's a bit of a Catch 22 for Boris.
If he brings in Nu Lockdown before Christmas he will be the most unpopular Briton in history, if he waits until after Xmas it is arguably too late and will do nothing - except grave economic harm. But can he brazen out and resist the boffins?
I have a one year on postponed 25th Wedding Anniversary on the 22nd at an exclusive TV Chef run establishment. Last year it was cancelled on the 19th. What is the probability that I make it this year?
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
Hi Graham. I guess the question is why LSHTM did not (like JP Morgan) include a scenario of lower virulence - given that this is a very-plausible option that changes outlook massively. See below...
I have a lot of sympathy with the question at the end. What is the point of a scenario that suggests there's no need to do anything?
We do not have confidence in either our predictions of probability nor impact, and hence we are not in the world where quantitative risk assessment is useful or valid. So, risk management in this zone of ignorance must fall back in adaptive risk management methods, prime of which is knowing what are your "Never Events", i.e. what are the outcomes you want to avoid at all costs, and what preparations you need to put in place to avoid them. Hence, in conditions of ignorance, it is more useful to focus on the worse case scenarios and one gains little to nothing from examining the "all's good" scenarios.
One thing though and maybe a lesson in the debate of compulsion vs persusaion. The response of the public to the booster scheme and advice to cut the contacts looks to have been notably compliant. Maybe we should trust the public more.
Most people are enthusiastic about the vaccines because they have already bought into the idea that they greatly reduce the chances of your getting really ill. There's no particular reason why demand for boosters should drop off.
You're not wrong, but I think I am beginning to detect signs of a bit of vaccine-weariness in certain people, a bit of a dislike to a situation where we're constantly being harangued to get more jabs but it doesn't really make life go back to normal.
If we get boosters and thoughts then more or less begin to turn towards dose 4 (and 5? and 6?) almost immediately next year I suspect a few people are going to start to grumble about it a bit louder. I'm not saying it would be particularly widespread at this point, but I detect an element of "jabs in perpetuity" isn't going to cut it with a certain section of the (generally younger) population, particularly not with everything else still being not really that close to normal.
I made this EXACT point to a Doctor couple the other day.
They didn't get it at all.
Nor did they understand that we can't afford more lockdowns.
They are both tremendous and lovely people. They're thoughtful and loving. BUT I think there is, sadly, a real disconnect between the realities of life and the views of many in the medical profession.
Which is why decisions about the economy, social and cultural life should not be left in the hands of medical, scientific and public health experts. This is the job of our elected politicians (taking into account advice from those experts AND experts in economics, social health, culture, and other sectors), regardless of what we think of them. They should do it.
If they don't take advice either from experts or from the public (who contune to favour more stringent measures in every poll), then we're left with government by whatever Boris Johnson happens to think. How confident are you that this will usually be best?
If it is the worst case scenario*, there will be an announcement of a Boris Johnson presser at 7pm or whatever. Then he will appear, flanked by Whitty and Vallance, with a very grave mien. Or he might even go full Churchill and address the nation direct and alone. It is with a heavy heart that I say this. Lockdown begins tomorrow. Etc
*I am reminded of my own First Rule of Covid: Expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario, as that is what will generally happen
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
The ranges on those predictions are laughable. How can anyone possibly make an informed decision based on them if those are the 95% CIs.
Realistically can we make informed decisions on a disease that has been known about for 3 weeks. Policymakers have to make uninformed decisions here, and wide confidence intervals seem appropriate even if far from ideal.
The issue seems to be that the actual value always seems to correspond to the lowest predicted value (or even lower) - or at least it has so far. Maybe not a surprise if they are only ever modelling worst case.
If the scenario really is worst case, though, surely you can't put error bars on it?
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
Hi Graham. I guess the question is why LSHTM did not (like JP Morgan) include a scenario of lower virulence - given that this is a very-plausible option that changes outlook massively. See below...
I have a lot of sympathy with the question at the end. What is the point of a scenario that suggests there's no need to do anything?
We do not have confidence in either our predictions of probability nor impact, and hence we are not in the world where quantitative risk assessment is useful or valid. So, risk management in this zone of ignorance must fall back in adaptive risk management methods, prime of which is knowing what are your "Never Events", i.e. what are the outcomes you want to avoid at all costs, and what preparations you need to put in place to avoid them. Hence, in conditions of ignorance, it is more useful to focus on the worse case scenarios and one gains little to nothing from examining the "all's good" scenarios.
But that means you constantly err on the side of over-caution and timidity, if all you ever hear is a voice saying "Oh if you do that, do you realise you might end up dead in a ditch in about 9 days?"
It is no way to run a life, a company, a household, a pandemic, a country
Alternatively, if the government is only getting this kind of doom-mongering from the medical geeks, I really hope they have statisticians and other data guys there giving them the more optimistic scenarios AS WELL
If it is the worst case scenario*, there will be an announcement of a Boris Johnson presser at 7pm or whatever. Then he will appear, flanked by Whitty and Vallance, with a very grave mien. Or he might even go full Churchill and address the nation direct and alone. It is with a heavy heart that I say this. Lockdown begins tomorrow. Etc
*I am reminded of my own First Rule of Covid: Expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario, as that is what will generally happen
Bollocks. We've had better than the optimistic scenarios consistently since vaccines began.
One thing though and maybe a lesson in the debate of compulsion vs persusaion. The response of the public to the booster scheme and advice to cut the contacts looks to have been notably compliant. Maybe we should trust the public more.
Most people are enthusiastic about the vaccines because they have already bought into the idea that they greatly reduce the chances of your getting really ill. There's no particular reason why demand for boosters should drop off.
You're not wrong, but I think I am beginning to detect signs of a bit of vaccine-weariness in certain people, a bit of a dislike to a situation where we're constantly being harangued to get more jabs but it doesn't really make life go back to normal.
If we get boosters and thoughts then more or less begin to turn towards dose 4 (and 5? and 6?) almost immediately next year I suspect a few people are going to start to grumble about it a bit louder. I'm not saying it would be particularly widespread at this point, but I detect an element of "jabs in perpetuity" isn't going to cut it with a certain section of the (generally younger) population, particularly not with everything else still being not really that close to normal.
I made this EXACT point to a Doctor couple the other day.
They didn't get it at all.
Nor did they understand that we can't afford more lockdowns.
They are both tremendous and lovely people. They're thoughtful and loving. BUT I think there is, sadly, a real disconnect between the realities of life and the views of many in the medical profession.
Which is why decisions about the economy, social and cultural life should not be left in the hands of medical, scientific and public health experts. This is the job of our elected politicians (taking into account advice from those experts AND experts in economics, social health, culture, and other sectors), regardless of what we think of them. They should do it.
If they don't take advice either from experts or from the public (who contune to favour more stringent measures in every poll), then we're left with government by whatever Boris Johnson happens to think. How confident are you that this will usually be best?
This is not true
"(who contune to favour more stringent measures in every poll),"
Hi Graham. I guess the question is why LSHTM did not (like JP Morgan) include a scenario of lower virulence - given that this is a very-plausible option that changes outlook massively. See below...
I have a lot of sympathy with the question at the end. What is the point of a scenario that suggests there's no need to do anything?
We do not have confidence in either our predictions of probability nor impact, and hence we are not in the world where quantitative risk assessment is useful or valid. So, risk management in this zone of ignorance must fall back in adaptive risk management methods, prime of which is knowing what are your "Never Events", i.e. what are the outcomes you want to avoid at all costs, and what preparations you need to put in place to avoid them. Hence, in conditions of ignorance, it is more useful to focus on the worse case scenarios and one gains little to nothing from examining the "all's good" scenarios.
Would it have hurt Mr Medley to have answered similarly?
Esher and Walton is one of the wealthiest constituencies in the UK, even in 1997 it was safe Tory. However post Brexit even in 2019 it was marginal let alone now and is a top LD target. Raab may move to a safer berth, probably a more rural seat which voted Leave (although as North Shropshire showed even they are not secure at present)
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
The track record of SAGE is that every time we’ve followed their advice we have saved lives
That would be true of a scientific committee that said "from now on, no one must ever climb a ladder; nor can anyone use a knife at home, play any sport, have sex with strangers, or go on holiday to anywhere outside German-speaking Switzerland"
Every time you followed their advice, you would save thousands of lives. Would we follow their insane advice? Of course not
Hi Graham. I guess the question is why LSHTM did not (like JP Morgan) include a scenario of lower virulence - given that this is a very-plausible option that changes outlook massively. See below...
I have a lot of sympathy with the question at the end. What is the point of a scenario that suggests there's no need to do anything?
We do not have confidence in either our predictions of probability nor impact, and hence we are not in the world where quantitative risk assessment is useful or valid. So, risk management in this zone of ignorance must fall back in adaptive risk management methods, prime of which is knowing what are your "Never Events", i.e. what are the outcomes you want to avoid at all costs, and what preparations you need to put in place to avoid them. Hence, in conditions of ignorance, it is more useful to focus on the worse case scenarios and one gains little to nothing from examining the "all's good" scenarios.
Would it have hurt Mr Medley to have answered similarly?
Check his final tweet, when he makes a supercilious, sniffy remark about "discussing science with the public"
Coz we are all too stupid, innit
I begin to loathe these people. A cabal of unelected scientists deciding the fate of the entire country. Fuck them and their fucking models
If they try and cancel Christmas by bringing in some kind of lockdown, then its pretty clear to me that people aren't going to comply.
It's a bit of a Catch 22 for Boris.
If he brings in Nu Lockdown before Christmas he will be the most unpopular Briton in history, if he waits until after Xmas it is arguably too late and will do nothing - except grave economic harm. But can he brazen out and resist the boffins?
They need someone in the Cabinet asking the questions Fraser Nelson has been asking:
In fairness to the modellers it looks like they are being asked "what's the worst that could happen" and answering that question.
They need to be asked better questions.
That's quite a remarkable dialogue. The SAGE guy does not come across too well. Haughty, prickly; like a 19th century bishop. These people have been stuffed with self-importance
I am going to give up on this, but just to finish by saying that this absolutely the wrong take. We model the scenarios that are most informative to help decisions be made
I have some sympathy - they are answering the questions they are asked.
They need to be asked better questions.
“You may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman, or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together—what do you get? The sum of their fears.”
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
If this modelling is in the slightest bit accurate, we need to lockdown right now. No two ways about it.
600-6000 is a laughable range. That's like saying I could make between £10k and a £100k next year.
But for someone setting up a brand new business, the right forecast may well be £10-100k next year. If that's the realistic confidence level, it is what it is.
If it is the worst case scenario*, there will be an announcement of a Boris Johnson presser at 7pm or whatever. Then he will appear, flanked by Whitty and Vallance, with a very grave mien. Or he might even go full Churchill and address the nation direct and alone. It is with a heavy heart that I say this. Lockdown begins tomorrow. Etc
*I am reminded of my own First Rule of Covid: Expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario, as that is what will generally happen
First big anti lockdown, anti restriction riots in London tonight as a flare is thrown at Downing Street as police struggle to keep control. Riots have been commonplace in Australia and New Zealand and on the continent during their prolonged lockdowns and if Boris announces another lockdown expect more disturbance
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
Hi Graham. I guess the question is why LSHTM did not (like JP Morgan) include a scenario of lower virulence - given that this is a very-plausible option that changes outlook massively. See below...
I have a lot of sympathy with the question at the end. What is the point of a scenario that suggests there's no need to do anything?
We do not have confidence in either our predictions of probability nor impact, and hence we are not in the world where quantitative risk assessment is useful or valid. So, risk management in this zone of ignorance must fall back in adaptive risk management methods, prime of which is knowing what are your "Never Events", i.e. what are the outcomes you want to avoid at all costs, and what preparations you need to put in place to avoid them. Hence, in conditions of ignorance, it is more useful to focus on the worse case scenarios and one gains little to nothing from examining the "all's good" scenarios.
But that means you constantly err on the side of over-caution and timidity, if all you ever hear is a voice saying "Oh if you do that, do you realise you might end up dead in a ditch in about 9 days?"
It is no way to run a life, a company, a household, a pandemic, a country
Alternatively, if the government is only getting this kind of doom-mongering from the medical geeks, I really hope they have statisticians and other data guys there giving them the more optimistic scenarios AS WELL
It is the way to run a company if you are a Boeing. It is when you don't that you end up with the Super MAX.
Taking an HRO approach is not doom-mongering. It is about delivering high-reliability in extremely risky and fast changing environments. It is the opposite of giving up.
Avoiding Never Events is something you only focus on for situations where the consequences are potentially catastrophic - as the name implies, things you want never to happen at all costs. It is not a general rule of life for all situations. It is not a rule for timidity, but for knowing what is absolutely essential and safeguarding that at some cost to efficiency and productivity in the short-term, to ensure that you survive in the long-term.
If it is the worst case scenario*, there will be an announcement of a Boris Johnson presser at 7pm or whatever. Then he will appear, flanked by Whitty and Vallance, with a very grave mien. Or he might even go full Churchill and address the nation direct and alone. It is with a heavy heart that I say this. Lockdown begins tomorrow. Etc
*I am reminded of my own First Rule of Covid: Expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario, as that is what will generally happen
From a purely televisual point of view, I assume that both Strictly and Match of the Day will be shorter than expected, what with one thing and another.
If it is the worst case scenario*, there will be an announcement of a Boris Johnson presser at 7pm or whatever. Then he will appear, flanked by Whitty and Vallance, with a very grave mien. Or he might even go full Churchill and address the nation direct and alone. It is with a heavy heart that I say this. Lockdown begins tomorrow. Etc
*I am reminded of my own First Rule of Covid: Expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario, as that is what will generally happen
First big anti lockdown, anti restriction riots in London tonight as a flare is thrown at Downing Street as police struggle to keep control. Riots have been commonplace in Australia and New Zealand and on the continent during their prolonged lockdowns and if Boris announces another lockdown expect more disturbance
We have a week's holiday booked in Cumbria from 3-7 January.
Do you think there's going to be lockdown restrictions for then? I'll be utterly livid if there are.
Certainly hope that you & yours will be able to enjoy your scheduled holiday.
May depend upon what you mean by lockdown? In interest of work avoidance, actually looked at website for your destination, currently they say they are requiring masks in public indoor spaces.
They're also having staffing issues (not a surprise) with some impacts on what's open & when on site.
IF the place is open (and not too crowded) and you can get there (by car?) it sure does look like a great place for a getaway away from the city and the madding crowd.
Good luck, bon voyage, bon chance and (above all) slainte!
If it is the worst case scenario*, there will be an announcement of a Boris Johnson presser at 7pm or whatever. Then he will appear, flanked by Whitty and Vallance, with a very grave mien. Or he might even go full Churchill and address the nation direct and alone. It is with a heavy heart that I say this. Lockdown begins tomorrow. Etc
*I am reminded of my own First Rule of Covid: Expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario, as that is what will generally happen
First big anti lockdown, anti restriction riots in London tonight as a flare is thrown at Downing Street as police struggle to keep control. Riots have been commonplace in Australia and New Zealand and on the continent during their prolonged lockdowns and if Boris announces another lockdown expect more disturbance
The track record of SAGE is that every time we’ve followed their advice we have saved lives
That would be true of a scientific committee that said "from now on, no one must ever climb a ladder; nor can anyone use a knife at home, play any sport, have sex with strangers, or go on holiday to anywhere outside German-speaking Switzerland"
Every time you followed their advice, you would save thousands of lives. Would we follow their insane advice? Of course not
Happy with the ladders thing, can use chopsticks, will get a timeshare in Zurich, but can I just clarify, does a half hours drunken conversation make someone an acquaintance rather than stranger?
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
If it is the worst case scenario*, there will be an announcement of a Boris Johnson presser at 7pm or whatever. Then he will appear, flanked by Whitty and Vallance, with a very grave mien. Or he might even go full Churchill and address the nation direct and alone. It is with a heavy heart that I say this. Lockdown begins tomorrow. Etc
*I am reminded of my own First Rule of Covid: Expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario, as that is what will generally happen
From a purely televisual point of view, I assume that both Strictly and Match of the Day will be shorter than expected, what with one thing and another.
There is a strike across London underground today too
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
If this modelling is in the slightest bit accurate, we need to lockdown right now. No two ways about it.
600-6000 is a laughable range. That's like saying I could make between £10k and a £100k next year.
But it's the nature of exponential processes, and this has an exponential somewhere under the bonnet, even if you think the doubling stops somewhere soon.
There's loads of frontier physics where getting the right power of ten is a major cause of celebration.
Sucks in terms of using the projections, sure. But this might genuinely be as good as it gets, and to await better modelling is a decision in itself.
A friend cites an interesting family dilemma. Her husband's first wife is an anti-vaxxer, and is sincerely convinced that if their teenage son (who lives with her) gets vaccinated he is risking terrible side-effects. His father is very keen that he should be vaccinated and equally sincerely feels that if he doesn't he risks a serious bout of Covid. The son would like to be vaccinated, but doesn't want to distress his mother. The parents are on uneasy terms so trying to insist risks leading to a serious family quarrel with uncertain outcomes. Nobody is actually wicked - they all wish the child well.
If it is the worst case scenario*, there will be an announcement of a Boris Johnson presser at 7pm or whatever. Then he will appear, flanked by Whitty and Vallance, with a very grave mien. Or he might even go full Churchill and address the nation direct and alone. It is with a heavy heart that I say this. Lockdown begins tomorrow. Etc
*I am reminded of my own First Rule of Covid: Expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario, as that is what will generally happen
From a purely televisual point of view, I assume that both Strictly and Match of the Day will be shorter than expected, what with one thing and another.
The Strictly slot is still nearly two hours. They are going to be filling like mad with waffle to compensate for AJ's missing performances. I mean, even more bloody waffle than usual.
MOTD is now half-an-hour. Extended coverage of Leeds being pulverised, followed by waffle about what to do about all the cancelled matches, presumably?
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
If this modelling is in the slightest bit accurate, we need to lockdown right now. No two ways about it.
600-6000 is a laughable range. That's like saying I could make between £10k and a £100k next year.
But for someone setting up a brand new business, the right forecast may well be £10-100k next year. If that's the realistic confidence level, it is what it is.
Hi Graham. I guess the question is why LSHTM did not (like JP Morgan) include a scenario of lower virulence - given that this is a very-plausible option that changes outlook massively. See below...
I have a lot of sympathy with the question at the end. What is the point of a scenario that suggests there's no need to do anything?
We do not have confidence in either our predictions of probability nor impact, and hence we are not in the world where quantitative risk assessment is useful or valid. So, risk management in this zone of ignorance must fall back in adaptive risk management methods, prime of which is knowing what are your "Never Events", i.e. what are the outcomes you want to avoid at all costs, and what preparations you need to put in place to avoid them. Hence, in conditions of ignorance, it is more useful to focus on the worse case scenarios and one gains little to nothing from examining the "all's good" scenarios.
But that means you constantly err on the side of over-caution and timidity, if all you ever hear is a voice saying "Oh if you do that, do you realise you might end up dead in a ditch in about 9 days?"
It is no way to run a life, a company, a household, a pandemic, a country
Alternatively, if the government is only getting this kind of doom-mongering from the medical geeks, I really hope they have statisticians and other data guys there giving them the more optimistic scenarios AS WELL
It is the way to run a company if you are a Boeing. It is when you don't that you end up with the Super MAX.
Taking an HRO approach is not doom-mongering. It is about delivering high-reliability in extremely risky and fast changing environments. It is the opposite of giving up.
Avoiding Never Events is something you only focus on for situations where the consequences are potentially catastrophic - as the name implies, things you want never to happen at all costs. It is not a general rule of life for all situations. It is not a rule for timidity, but for knowing what is absolutely essential and safeguarding that at some cost to efficiency and productivity in the short-term, to ensure that you survive in the long-term.
So , let's say a company wants to launch a risky new product. Something they have never tried before. But it is deemed to have potential
They call in their experts and all they ask them is "how badly could this go wrong?"
They do not get anyone in to assign probabilities to these events, they do not get anyone in to say Remember you could make 20 trillion in profit if it works
So of course they don't take the risk. Stay safe.
It strikes me this is possibly the worst way to run a company, it is what happened to Nokia, and to so many other big corps. Never take any risks. Then you slowly fade and die
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
The truth is until we have a handle on the deadliness of omicron all the models are a waste of time.
Early evidence seems to be that it's milder. Not time to panic yet.
I think the other reason not to panic is no-one seems able to say how we will exit this lockdown in a good way. The costs of a six month lockdown vs a two month lockdown are extremely different yet little to no attention is paid to this.
A friend cites an interesting family dilemma. Her husband's first wife is an anti-vaxxer, and is sincerely convinced that if their teenage son (who lives with her) gets vaccinated he is risking terrible side-effects. His father is very keen that he should be vaccinated and equally sincerely feels that if he doesn't he risks a serious bout of Covid. The son would like to be vaccinated, but doesn't want to distress his mother. The parents are on uneasy terms so trying to insist risks leading to a serious family quarrel with uncertain outcomes. Nobody is actually wicked - they all wish the child well.
How far should her husband press the issue?
What’s it got to do with the mother? Kid should just go with his dad for a jab on the way to whatever they normally do on a Saturday.
If it is the worst case scenario*, there will be an announcement of a Boris Johnson presser at 7pm or whatever. Then he will appear, flanked by Whitty and Vallance, with a very grave mien. Or he might even go full Churchill and address the nation direct and alone. It is with a heavy heart that I say this. Lockdown begins tomorrow. Etc
*I am reminded of my own First Rule of Covid: Expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario, as that is what will generally happen
Bollocks. We've had better than the optimistic scenarios consistently since vaccines began.
This is hysterical madness not justified caution.
I basically agree.
However I am not hopeful for your holibobs. 10% chance of it happening? I pray I am wrong. For a start I want to go get some winter sun. If they bring in Rule 2 shit, there will be no international travel
Hi Graham. I guess the question is why LSHTM did not (like JP Morgan) include a scenario of lower virulence - given that this is a very-plausible option that changes outlook massively. See below...
I have a lot of sympathy with the question at the end. What is the point of a scenario that suggests there's no need to do anything?
We do not have confidence in either our predictions of probability nor impact, and hence we are not in the world where quantitative risk assessment is useful or valid. So, risk management in this zone of ignorance must fall back in adaptive risk management methods, prime of which is knowing what are your "Never Events", i.e. what are the outcomes you want to avoid at all costs, and what preparations you need to put in place to avoid them. Hence, in conditions of ignorance, it is more useful to focus on the worse case scenarios and one gains little to nothing from examining the "all's good" scenarios.
But that means you constantly err on the side of over-caution and timidity, if all you ever hear is a voice saying "Oh if you do that, do you realise you might end up dead in a ditch in about 9 days?"
It is no way to run a life, a company, a household, a pandemic, a country
Alternatively, if the government is only getting this kind of doom-mongering from the medical geeks, I really hope they have statisticians and other data guys there giving them the more optimistic scenarios AS WELL
It is the way to run a company if you are a Boeing. It is when you don't that you end up with the Super MAX.
Taking an HRO approach is not doom-mongering. It is about delivering high-reliability in extremely risky and fast changing environments. It is the opposite of giving up.
Avoiding Never Events is something you only focus on for situations where the consequences are potentially catastrophic - as the name implies, things you want never to happen at all costs. It is not a general rule of life for all situations. It is not a rule for timidity, but for knowing what is absolutely essential and safeguarding that at some cost to efficiency and productivity in the short-term, to ensure that you survive in the long-term.
So , let's say a company wants to launch a risky new product. Something they have never tried before. But it is deemed to have potential
They call in their experts and all they ask them is "how badly could this go wrong?"
They do not get anyone in to assign probabilities to these events, they do not get anyone in to say Remember you could make 20 trillion in profit if it works
So of course they don't take the risk. Stay safe.
It strikes me this is possibly the worst way to run a company, it is what happened to Nokia, and to so many other big corps. Never take any risks. Then you slowly fade and die
And yet it is the way all Western airlines operate, all nuclear power companies, most railways, and so on. Not worth the time to debate this with you.
Comments
Final result as certified December 17, 2021
Ballots cast = 41,033 (52.9% of active voter registration)
Recall Yes = 20,346 (49.6%)
Recall No = 20,656 (50.4%)
margin = -310 (-0.8%)
Sponsors of the recall effort have said they do NOT plan to request a recount.
Kshama Sawant is the most recent, and among the most prominent, of Seattle's long line of stormy petrels in politics. For example, Marion Zioncheck, a radical New Deal congressman with a meteoric political career but who suffered from (it appears) bipolar illness and ended up jumping out of the window of his 5th-floor office in the Arctic Building in downtown Seattle.
Like Zioncheck, Sawant is an immigrant (he from Poland, she from India) and an avowed socialist; however, she is a Trotskyist while he was Democrat, both small d & Big D. Sawant is local leader of Socialist Alternative, an offshoot or something similar from Militant Tendency.
Bottom line here is that Kshama Sawant has survived a grueling and expensive (over $1 million spent by her opponents AND ditto by her) mid-term near-death experience, politically speaking.
How did she win? Thanks to her well-organized, well-heeled and well-drilled grassroots political machine. Actually astroturf in a way, because backbone is paid organizers. However, Sawant's machine is tapping, and she is inspiring, a strong vein of progressivism in the cities most leftwing district, with lots of young(ish) renters, albeit with a strong component of somewhat older and more moderate (by Seattle standards) homeowners.
One tactic that Sawant used, and which no doubt saved her hide, was setting up printers on street corners in lower Capitol Hill & vicinity, so that voters could print out their ballots and vote them on the spot. Recall sponsors and supporters naturally had some concerns about this.
However, ballot printing on request outside of election offices has been available in Washington State for a while, and is thus nothing new under the sun, and is used by all kinds of voters who either never got or (more likely) misplaced or lost the ballot mailed to them.
Further note that before ANY ballot returned is accepted for counting, the voter signature on the outside envelope is checked by election workers against the signature on file.
In fact, in this very special election, total of 491 returned ballots were NOT counted, the lion's share because sigs did NOT match or the ballot was unsigned; note that these folks were notified (including in some cases by one or the other or even both campaigns) and given a chance to submit required sigs or other info. Indeed, many voters whose ballots were initially "challenged" did just that, their ballots were "cured" and thus counted.
However we do now have a track record of clear failure from Sage & Co, and nearly always towards over-pessimism. I hope the government has other advisors, for a balanced view
Hiding at home, on the other hand, will be the product of some who are frightened of the virus and others who want to avoid self-isolation at Christmas. The poor, battered pubs and restaurants will be hoping that the latter group comes back once they're in danger of being forced not to go to work, rather than of being forced to abandon the family get together.
They've formatted their tables in rather non-twitter friendly format, so my only contribution is a summary:
(Full text: https://gov.uk/government/publications/spi-m-o-consensus-statement-on-covid-19-15-december-2021/spi-m-o-consensus-statement-on-covid-19-15-december-2021.)
https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1472258640576925699?s=20
Not having sight of their inputs, I'll stick with saying again: a) There's quite some bridge to build between this and the experience in South Africa, and b) This sentence is the reason I don't envy anyone making decisions right now.
https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1472261031196041217?s=20
Bye bye
There is one route to cut the hospitalisations dramatically. Tell everyone over 70 to isolate. Would anyone have the cojones?
If we get boosters and thoughts then more or less begin to turn towards dose 4 (and 5? and 6?) almost immediately next year I suspect a few people are going to start to grumble about it a bit louder. I'm not saying it would be particularly widespread at this point, but I detect an element of "jabs in perpetuity" isn't going to cut it with a certain section of the (generally younger) population, particularly not with everything else still being not really that close to normal.
Every time you followed their advice, you would save thousands of lives. Would we follow their insane advice? Of course not
My PhD supervisor would have laughed me out of his office if I had produced models like that.
https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1472264771143622660?s=20
Surely their models could have been improved over the past year? We've had unprecedented amounts of data from all quarters.
"What's going to happen with Omicron?"
Pause
"Well, it could be..... real real.... bad. Or...."
Pause
"Or... it could be real real......"
Pause
"Badder."
and that if you go to https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations
and look at boosters data, you'll see that 10 of the 11 weeks show the same pattern.
They didn't get it at all.
Nor did they understand that we can't afford more lockdowns.
They are both tremendous and lovely people. They're thoughtful and loving. BUT I think there is, sadly, a real disconnect between the realities of life and the views of many in the medical profession.
Not that we should lock down mind.
2013 = 58.4% 2015 = 56.0% 2019 = 51.9% 2021 = 50.4%
Personally am sensing a trend . . .
As I keep saying, the Tories are leading the charge to stop them being built.
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/planning-inspectors-allow-300-extra-22504639
If he brings in Nu Lockdown before Christmas he will be the most unpopular Briton in history, if he waits until after Xmas it is arguably too late and will do nothing - except grave economic harm. But can he brazen out and resist the boffins?
See the SAGE reports. That's what it says. For this to work, it has to be done ASAP. Today. Action this minute.
And note that the Dutch have done just that: Hard Lockdown begins at 5am tomorrow. Instantaneous. No warning
There is, to my mind, a real chance HMG will do the same. Not likely, but far from impossible
https://twitter.com/MightyBronan/status/1472264385871683585
In fairness to the modellers it looks like they are being asked "what's the worst that could happen" and answering that question.
They need to be asked better questions.
The Government won't leave the hospitals to burn without demonstrating that they've taken all practical measures to prevent that outcome. It's evidently not enough for Boris Johnson to tell us that there is no point in lockdown because it won't work. It has to be seen to fail in practice.
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1472183666336059393?s=20
The reply Fraser got:
What would be the point of that? Not a snarky question- genuine to know what you think decision makers would learn from that scenario
https://twitter.com/GrahamMedley/status/1472209055447932931?s=20
If it was slated for Jan 4th I'd say 10% chance
We do not have confidence in either our predictions of probability nor impact, and hence we are not in the world where quantitative risk assessment is useful or valid. So, risk management in this zone of ignorance must fall back in adaptive risk management methods, prime of which is knowing what are your "Never Events", i.e. what are the outcomes you want to avoid at all costs, and what preparations you need to put in place to avoid them. Hence, in conditions of ignorance, it is more useful to focus on the worse case scenarios and one gains little to nothing from examining the "all's good" scenarios.
Do you think there's going to be lockdown restrictions for then? I'll be utterly livid if there are.
If it is the worst case scenario*, there will be an announcement of a Boris Johnson presser at 7pm or whatever. Then he will appear, flanked by Whitty and Vallance, with a very grave mien. Or he might even go full Churchill and address the nation direct and alone. It is with a heavy heart that I say this. Lockdown begins tomorrow. Etc
*I am reminded of my own First Rule of Covid: Expect the Reasonable Worst Case Scenario, as that is what will generally happen
If the scenario really is worst case, though, surely you can't put error bars on it? How many lives would that save in the long run? Surely that's the important question.
Most of those admissions would just be punted into the future by a lockdown - to continue clogging up the NHS for yet another year.
Is that really preferable?
It is no way to run a life, a company, a household, a pandemic, a country
Alternatively, if the government is only getting this kind of doom-mongering from the medical geeks, I really hope they have statisticians and other data guys there giving them the more optimistic scenarios AS WELL
This is hysterical madness not justified caution.
"(who contune to favour more stringent measures in every poll),"
https://order-order.com/2021/12/17/poll-finds-public-do-not-want-another-lockdown/
Latest Times poll. Public has turned against lockdown
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1472179519427686401
Coz we are all too stupid, innit
I begin to loathe these people. A cabal of unelected scientists deciding the fate of the entire country. Fuck them and their fucking models
https://twitter.com/GrahamMedley/status/1472275567714217985?s=20
I have some sympathy - they are answering the questions they are asked.
They need to be asked better questions.
“You may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman, or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together—what do you get? The sum of their fears.”
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1472236124592607235?s=20
Taking an HRO approach is not doom-mongering. It is about delivering high-reliability in extremely risky and fast changing environments. It is the opposite of giving up.
Avoiding Never Events is something you only focus on for situations where the consequences are potentially catastrophic - as the name implies, things you want never to happen at all costs. It is not a general rule of life for all situations. It is not a rule for timidity, but for knowing what is absolutely essential and safeguarding that at some cost to efficiency and productivity in the short-term, to ensure that you survive in the long-term.
Early evidence seems to be that it's milder. Not time to panic yet.
May depend upon what you mean by lockdown? In interest of work avoidance, actually looked at website for your destination, currently they say they are requiring masks in public indoor spaces.
They're also having staffing issues (not a surprise) with some impacts on what's open & when on site.
IF the place is open (and not too crowded) and you can get there (by car?) it sure does look like a great place for a getaway away from the city and the madding crowd.
Good luck, bon voyage, bon chance and (above all) slainte!
There's loads of frontier physics where getting the right power of ten is a major cause of celebration.
Sucks in terms of using the projections, sure. But this might genuinely be as good as it gets, and to await better modelling is a decision in itself.
How far should her husband press the issue?
MOTD is now half-an-hour. Extended coverage of Leeds being pulverised, followed by waffle about what to do about all the cancelled matches, presumably?
They call in their experts and all they ask them is "how badly could this go wrong?"
They do not get anyone in to assign probabilities to these events, they do not get anyone in to say Remember you could make 20 trillion in profit if it works
So of course they don't take the risk. Stay safe.
It strikes me this is possibly the worst way to run a company, it is what happened to Nokia, and to so many other big corps. Never take any risks. Then you slowly fade and die
https://scontent-iad3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/267620982_10228760425982478_4285562086496486336_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=bJVIlEz4sesAX_p4yFw&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-2.xx&oh=00_AT8q-il7aHcBC1vJQQHfzy8CqrnB0E9Uu1Ebbm68Ol7Hsg&oe=61C351A8
However I am not hopeful for your holibobs. 10% chance of it happening? I pray I am wrong. For a start I want to go get some winter sun. If they bring in Rule 2 shit, there will be no international travel