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?
Johnson is elected and accountable and so is the right person to make the call, not some unelected official. This is a basic political principle. The preservation of social order and the economy is more important than the fight against COVID, as we would soon find if social order broke down.
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
In Canada PM Trudeau tonight has just advised Canadians against all non essential international travel
🚨🚨 | BREAKING: One option the government is considering is imposing a time limited circuit breaker, and then the release of restrictions is linked to how many of us get vaccinated
Lol to the idea of a lockdown. Is there anyone out there that is actually going to comply with any rules on household mixing at this point?
It depends how successful the Government and media are in scaring the shit out of people. If Omicron can still be squashed by a lockdown then the prime targets will be the elderly and vulnerable. The Government won't be so concerned about uni students holding clandestine parties if their grandparents spend the entire Winter locked in their houses trembling in complete terror.
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.
Sure, but you shouldn't lend them money on the basis of that forecast.
The fact that the range is an accurate reflection of the level of uncertainty inherent in the situation is not particularly relevant right now. It's borderline irresponsible to release numbers to policymakers on this basis. Far better to simply say that they can't derive anything useful until they get more data.
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 to worry, they have Lineker presenting. With his £4m a salary or whatever it is now, he must surely be able to do more than say "next its Tottenham v Southampton" and "do you think that was a penalty, Alan?".
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.
lol
Interesting that you choose areas where so many companies are useless, or need endless government subsidy, or fall into bankruptcy. Railways, Nuclear Power, Airlines.
If you want to see commercial success, you don't look there
Perhaps their methods and modellers are, um, a bit shit?
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?
Johnson is elected and accountable and so is the right person to make the call, not some unelected official. This is a basic political principle. The preservation of social order and the economy is more important than the fight against COVID, as we would soon find if social order broke down.
I hope Rishi has the reserves to fund the extra riot police that will be needed as well as the extra furlough if the government announce another lockdown?
🚨🚨 | BREAKING: One option the government is considering is imposing a time limited circuit breaker, and then the release of restrictions is linked to how many of us get vaccinated
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
In Canada PM Trudeau tonight has just advised Canadians against all non essential international travel
🚨🚨 | BREAKING: One option the government is considering is imposing a time limited circuit breaker, and then the release of restrictions is linked to how many of us get vaccinated
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.
Sure, but you shouldn't lend them money on the basis of that forecast.
The fact that the range is an accurate reflection of the level of uncertainty inherent in the situation is not particularly relevant right now. It's borderline irresponsible to release numbers to policymakers on this basis. Far better to simply say that they can't derive anything useful until they get more data.
Lol to the idea of a lockdown. Is there anyone out there that is actually going to comply with any rules on household mixing at this point?
It depends how successful the Government and media are in scaring the shit out of people. If Omicron can still be squashed by a lockdown then the prime targets will be the elderly and vulnerable. The Government won't be so concerned about uni students holding clandestine parties if their grandparents spend the entire Winter locked in their houses trembling in complete terror.
I would rather my parents caught omicron in the coming weeks than spend months in fear only to catch it anyway but with a waning T cell response to their boosted.
Lol to the idea of a lockdown. Is there anyone out there that is actually going to comply with any rules on household mixing at this point?
To each his or her own.
I would comply, would find it fairly easy in fact but I can understand others with extended family and friends it would be a much more difficult prospect.
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)
Perhaps he might go for North Shropshire , it is the most likely seat for a new Tory MP at the next GE
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.
Sure, but you shouldn't lend them money on the basis of that forecast.
The fact that the range is an accurate reflection of the level of uncertainty inherent in the situation is not particularly relevant right now. It's borderline irresponsible to release numbers to policymakers on this basis. Far better to simply say that they can't derive anything useful until they get more data.
'The fact that the range is an accurate reflection of the uncertainty is not relevant?' Lol. This forum is full of cranks.
Those who can do. Those who can't spend a good chunk of their lives solving the world's major issues in their heads.
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
But you’ve been wrong, and overly pessimistic, time and again, and have made endless negativist errors. Often by copying random alarmist rubbish you’ve just that minute found on Twitter.
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.
Sure, but you shouldn't lend them money on the basis of that forecast.
The fact that the range is an accurate reflection of the level of uncertainty inherent in the situation is not particularly relevant right now. It's borderline irresponsible to release numbers to policymakers on this basis. Far better to simply say that they can't derive anything useful until they get more data.
Depends how much money you'd be lending them...
And dozens of other factors too. The comparison to the governments decision is not between lending or keeping the money safe anyway. There is no safe choice here.
We can either fuck the economy and social interactions to try and protect health. Or can protect the economy and social interactions at the possible disastrous expense of health.
Lol to the idea of a lockdown. Is there anyone out there that is actually going to comply with any rules on household mixing at this point?
It depends how successful the Government and media are in scaring the shit out of people. If Omicron can still be squashed by a lockdown then the prime targets will be the elderly and vulnerable. The Government won't be so concerned about uni students holding clandestine parties if their grandparents spend the entire Winter locked in their houses trembling in complete terror.
I would rather my parents caught omicron in the coming weeks than spend months in fear only to catch it anyway but with a waning T cell response to their boosted.
Well, that scenario heavily depends on timing beyond your control. If they get covid in the next few weeks during a spike with very high hospitalisation rates, then they may not get the care they require. If they get it in a few months, there might be less hospital demand and better therapeutics.
But if you really believe that, encourage someone with Covid to cough on them. That way they won't have to spend 'months in fear' and you'll be able test your scenario ...
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
But you’ve been wrong, and overly pessimistic, time and again, and have made endless negativist errors. Often by copying random alarmist rubbish you’ve just that minute found on Twitter.
And the government doesn't even pay me for all my work. Bastards
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.
I think the range reflects the huge uncertainties in the modelling. I can't comment on the accuracy of the models given the inputs available. What I do observe though is that the identified high risk is much greater than the low risk. On the Plan B do-not-change-anything scenario, the best likely case is almost as bad as the January peak while the worst case is many times worse. If the purpose of the modelling is to identify whether we can cope with what the scenario implies, rather than just coming up with probabilities of an outcome - effectively making this a stress test - there's a strong argument for more restrictions now.
Unless we can be confident for good reasons that other less alarming modelling is more accurate.
Leon goes between LOCKDOWN NOW to ALL SCIENCE IS NONSENSE so quickly I'm getting dizzy.
I assume it's for attention
We’ve seen tonight Graeme Medley specifically say that none of their modelling considers that omicron might be less severe. That instantly raises a red flag to me. Their plan b best case scenario implicitly assumes that omicron is at least as bad as delta. Evidence is growing that this is not the case. I really really hope someone in the room is putting these points across to those making the decisions.
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.
Sure, but you shouldn't lend them money on the basis of that forecast.
The fact that the range is an accurate reflection of the level of uncertainty inherent in the situation is not particularly relevant right now. It's borderline irresponsible to release numbers to policymakers on this basis. Far better to simply say that they can't derive anything useful until they get more data.
Depends how much money you'd be lending them...
And dozens of other factors too. The comparison to the governments decision is not between lending or keeping the money safe anyway. There is no safe choice here.
We can either fuck the economy and social interactions to try and protect health. Or can protect the economy and social interactions at the possible disastrous expense of health.
It's not that simple.
No lockdown and people will still cancel hospitality, stay home and economy still gets a big hit.
Lockdown and still loads get sick, and unpredictably severely so, at a time of massive existing pressure at a time where staff rotas are tightly stressed.
There really is no good option just a choice of bad ones.
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.
I think the range reflects the huge uncertainties in the modelling. I can't comment on the accuracy of the models given the inputs available. What I do observe though is that the identified high risk is much greater than the low risk. On the Plan B do-not-change-anything scenario, the best likely case is almost as bad as the January peak while the worst case is many times worse. If the purpose of the modelling is to identify whether we can cope with what the scenario implies, rather than just coming up with probabilities of an outcome - effectively making this a stress test - there's a strong argument for more restrictions now.
Unless we can be confident for good reasons that other less alarming modelling is more accurate.
Absolutely. There are lot of expert modellers on here. But they always seem reluctant to write their own predictions down in black and white. I know they write thousands of posts often covering all the possible outcomes. So to help with that it would be good if they just made one post with an estimate alongside some uncertainty. Put it on an independent site. Then we can judge them by the standards they want to judge others by. Seems fair..
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.
Sure, but you shouldn't lend them money on the basis of that forecast.
The fact that the range is an accurate reflection of the level of uncertainty inherent in the situation is not particularly relevant right now. It's borderline irresponsible to release numbers to policymakers on this basis. Far better to simply say that they can't derive anything useful until they get more data.
Depends how much money you'd be lending them...
And dozens of other factors too. The comparison to the governments decision is not between lending or keeping the money safe anyway. There is no safe choice here.
We can either fuck the economy and social interactions to try and protect health. Or can protect the economy and social interactions at the possible disastrous expense of health.
It's not that simple.
No lockdown and people will still cancel hospitality, stay home and economy still gets a big hit.
Lockdown and still loads get sick, and unpredictably severely so, at a time of massive existing pressure at a time where staff rotas are tightly stressed.
There really is no good option just a choice of bad ones.
Agreed, my point was that all options are hugely uncertain, so the comparison with should a bank lend money to a new business with a wide range of uncertainty is not appropriate. The comparison would be if a bank had to choose one from a handful of small businesses, all with huge uncertainty and limited information, but could not keep their money safe.
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?
Johnson is elected and accountable and so is the right person to make the call, not some unelected official. This is a basic political principle. The preservation of social order and the economy is more important than the fight against COVID, as we would soon find if social order broke down.
I hope Rishi has the reserves to fund the extra riot police that will be needed as well as the extra furlough if the government announce another lockdown?
The only small consolation from a lockdown is looking forward to reading all your posts criticising our idiot Prime Minister.
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
But you’ve been wrong, and overly pessimistic, time and again, and have made endless negativist errors. Often by copying random alarmist rubbish you’ve just that minute found on Twitter.
And the government doesn't even pay me for all my work. Bastards
They couldn't afford it. The past five hours, at least, on PB. You and Franny U are PB monsters.
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.
I think the range reflects the huge uncertainties in the modelling. I can't comment on the accuracy of the models given the inputs available. What I do observe though is that the identified high risk is much greater than the low risk. On the Plan B do-not-change-anything scenario, the best likely case is almost as bad as the January peak while the worst case is many times worse. If the purpose of the modelling is to identify whether we can cope with what the scenario implies, rather than just coming up with probabilities of an outcome - effectively making this a stress test - there's a strong argument for more restrictions now.
Unless we can be confident for good reasons that other less alarming modelling is more accurate.
The last model said 7k hospitalisations per day for Delta. I just can't take them seriously any longer. This is literally what I do for a living as well, model data and forecast, though not for diseases. The methodology seems as though they want a predetermined answer and then adjust their inputs to achieve them. I can't explain how they have come up with an upper range of 6k with all of the evidence on 3 dose efficacy and the hospitalisation rate of COVID in the unvaccinated. It just doesn't add up at all.
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
But you’ve been wrong, and overly pessimistic, time and again, and have made endless negativist errors. Often by copying random alarmist rubbish you’ve just that minute found on Twitter.
And the government doesn't even pay me for all my work. Bastards
They couldn't afford it. The past five hours, at least, on PB. You and Franny U are PB monsters.
I come onto this site to read the insights of Franny U. Thousands and thousands of insights a week. This guy is so good he should be guiding policy - why isn't he? He would make his PhD supervisor so proud if he did.
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.
I think the range reflects the huge uncertainties in the modelling. I can't comment on the accuracy of the models given the inputs available. What I do observe though is that the identified high risk is much greater than the low risk. On the Plan B do-not-change-anything scenario, the best likely case is almost as bad as the January peak while the worst case is many times worse. If the purpose of the modelling is to identify whether we can cope with what the scenario implies, rather than just coming up with probabilities of an outcome - effectively making this a stress test - there's a strong argument for more restrictions now.
Unless we can be confident for good reasons that other less alarming modelling is more accurate.
The last model said 7k hospitalisations per day for Delta. I just can't take them seriously any longer. This is literally what I do for a living as well, model data and forecast, though not for diseases. The methodology seems as though they want a predetermined answer and then adjust their inputs to achieve them. I can't explain how they have come up with an upper range of 6k with all of the evidence on 3 dose efficacy and the hospitalisation rate of COVID in the unvaccinated. It just doesn't add up at all.
You do it for living. Great. Produce your estimate and uncertainty.
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.
The expert didn't deal well with the question and being rude doesn't help. The answer is in the model summary. The evidence such as it is suggests virulence is similar to Delta. By implication the other factors noted to have high degrees of uncertainty - the effect of vaccines and people's actual behaviour - have a much greater impact on the outcomes. So why model a lower virulence, which probably doesn't apply anyway?
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.
Sure, but you shouldn't lend them money on the basis of that forecast.
The fact that the range is an accurate reflection of the level of uncertainty inherent in the situation is not particularly relevant right now. It's borderline irresponsible to release numbers to policymakers on this basis. Far better to simply say that they can't derive anything useful until they get more data.
Depends how much money you'd be lending them...
If Political Betters don't know that there is a level of uncertainty in all future events and that the level is greater than people characteristically think it is hard to think who will know. Bitter experience will suffice.
EXCLUSIVE: Brexit Minister Lord Frost has resigned from Boris Johnson’s Cabinet over the ‘political direction of his Government’. Full details in tomorrow’s Mail on Sunday.
EXCLUSIVE: Brexit Minister Lord Frost has resigned from Boris Johnson’s Cabinet over the ‘political direction of his Government’. Full details in tomorrow’s Mail on Sunday.
Fake news surely? No one is silly enough to believe this government has any direction.
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 appreciate that it's not a cast iron guarantee. And perhaps to be truly impervious the person has to be in the Ashcroft category of rich, not just well-off. However on balance I still think it's better than being non-wealthy, on a (relatively) modest salary, but making billions of pounds worth of decisions on a daily basis.
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
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1472279344940789762?t=yFtm2rBTzs8HgT_xVeOW4Q&s=19
https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1472271332591247368?s=20
Via @thesundaytimes
Held hostage by thr antivaxxers....that will go down worse than yet another #10 zoom quiz.
The fact that the range is an accurate reflection of the level of uncertainty inherent in the situation is not particularly relevant right now. It's borderline irresponsible to release numbers to policymakers on this basis. Far better to simply say that they can't derive anything useful until they get more data.
Interesting that you choose areas where so many companies are useless, or need endless government subsidy, or fall into bankruptcy. Railways, Nuclear Power, Airlines.
If you want to see commercial success, you don't look there
Perhaps their methods and modellers are, um, a bit shit?
*Mods, I won't really do this, just illustrating the risks here
I would comply, would find it fairly easy in fact but I can understand others with extended family and friends it would be a much more difficult prospect.
Those who can do. Those who can't spend a good chunk of their lives solving the world's major issues in their heads.
We can either fuck the economy and social interactions to try and protect health.
Or can protect the economy and social interactions at the possible disastrous expense of health.
But if you really believe that, encourage someone with Covid to cough on them. That way they won't have to spend 'months in fear' and you'll be able test your scenario ...
Unless we can be confident for good reasons that other less alarming modelling is more accurate.
I assume it's for attention
Evidence is growing that this is not the case.
I really really hope someone in the room is putting these points across to those making the decisions.
No lockdown and people will still cancel hospitality, stay home and economy still gets a big hit.
Lockdown and still loads get sick, and unpredictably severely so, at a time of massive existing pressure at a time where staff rotas are tightly stressed.
There really is no good option just a choice of bad ones.