Some interesting stats from the Javid interview on Sky.
Basically the government / advisers are working on the premise that rather than rough 3x infections to cases, that Omicron is 5-6x.
And that 90% of those in hospital "that need the most care" (whatever that exactly means, perhaps ICU?) are unvaccinated.
Can you please clarify the second sentence? Must be me, but I can't work it out - do you mean that 1/5 or 1/6 of infections produce cases of symptoms or what?
Not quite. It means a combination of asymptomatic and those that don't take tests for whatever reason.
My thoughts were previously we used to talk about ~x3 multiplier....but now lots of people are LFT testing left, right and centre, which you would think would be picking up lots more of the previously undiscovered asymptomatic cases.
Ah, thanks, so the reported cases in the official stats really represent 5 or 6 times as many cases in the real world (both er asymptomatic and not reported).
Yes. Which I thought sounded incredibly high given we now do 1.5 million tests a day. And if it is correct, this wave won't take long to get through everybody.
It just struck me as very large multiplier. But Trevor Philips didn't ask Javid for really any more information about it.
This is interesting. I don’t think anyone’s believed testing has found all cases, but 5x sounds large in a work of asymptomatic testing. I strongly suspect that most negative lateral flows are not recorded. I wonder if this is yet another assumption chosen to fit the right result?
Look at this. We also have real world data from NYC, which also has Omicron
“But new hospitalizations and deaths are averaging well below their spring 2020 peak and even where they were this time last year, during a winter wave that came as vaccinations were just beginning, city data shows.
“Mount Sinai Health System emergency rooms had seen about 20% more patients – with all conditions – in recent days, according to Dr Eric Legome, who oversees two of the network’s seven ERs. But at least so far, he said, “We’re seeing a lot more treat-and-release” coronavirus patients than in earlier waves.
“Many are looking for tests, help with mild or moderate symptoms, or monoclonal antibody treatment, but very few require oxygen or a hospital stay, said Legome.”
To hell with the stupid models. Real life says This isn’t so bad. If they still lock us down, despite the hard evidence, I will personally REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED til he weeps
This is the point Fraser Nelson was making about the SAGE models, they simple use the most negative inputs and present that as evidence for lockdown. Any positive inputs are simply ignored as "not relevant to the decision making process" they are putting their finger on the scale and saying 6000 people per day will die.
The circling of the wagons this morning on the media by the "modelling" community is something to behold. It is being spun as its basically the governments fault, they don't ask for the right things.
I do have a certain amount of sympathy with that view, based on personal experience - the client often doesn't ask the right questions of the model, especially when the client is as technically unsophisticated as the Government is - but only a certain amount: two years into this process, they should really by now have figured out how to present the information that will actually be useful, regardless of the question asked.
"We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions".
This is the end of SAGE isn't it?
They are done with this admittance.
What's wrong with that? It's not in itself an unreasonable statement, or is there some context I am missing? Modelling, for instance, a scenario of 100% 90 year olds living each on their own without seeing anyone else would be a perfectly logical possibility, but it would be of no practical use and therefore not worth the time (except as a teaching example as part of a step in developing understanding of modelling).
As I understand what the Spectator seem to have unearthed is they only use inputs to models that lead to scary scenarios because, they seem to think, it is only those models that produce outputs which show a decision needs to be made.
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
The only people that seem to be relatively pro-lockdown are me and a couple of others and I say this despite it probably destroying my mental health.
PB is not pro lockdown at all, Leon is just making things up, surprise surprise
No-one who isn't mad is in favour of unnecessary lockdown. The question whether it is necessary isn't getting much airing here, where it doesn't matter, nor in the political arena, where it does matter.
What is telling is that most who are against lockdown now have been against it for most of the last year, and those who are in favour now have been in favour for most of the last year. I am not sure the real scientific risks which have changed greatly in the last three weeks, and may do so each day as we learn more about the virus, make much impact on either side, it is more of an emotional and personal decision about which "side" to be on perhaps.
Lockdowns made sense much earlier in the pandemic, and I was a supporter.
Considering the availability and mass use of vaccines, and the extraordinarily high rate of transmission of the latest variant, I think a lockdown pretty well useless in the current situation - and the costs unjustifiable.
(I’ve largely avoided the recent arguments for the reasons you point out.)
Some interesting stats from the Javid interview on Sky.
Basically the government / advisers are working on the premise that rather than rough 3x infections to cases, that Omicron is 5-6x.
And that 90% of those in hospital "that need the most care" (whatever that exactly means, perhaps ICU?) are unvaccinated.
Can you please clarify the second sentence? Must be me, but I can't work it out - do you mean that 1/5 or 1/6 of infections produce cases of symptoms or what?
Not quite. It means a combination of asymptomatic and those that don't take tests for whatever reason.
My thoughts were previously we used to talk about ~x3 multiplier....but now lots of people are LFT testing left, right and centre, which you would think would be picking up lots more of the previously undiscovered asymptomatic cases.
Ah, thanks, so the reported cases in the official stats really represent 5 or 6 times as many cases in the real world (both er asymptomatic and not reported).
Yes. Which I thought sounded incredibly high given we now do 1.5 million tests a day. And if it is correct, this wave won't take long to get through everybody.
It just struck me as very large multiplier. But Trevor Philips didn't ask Javid for really any more information about it.
This is interesting. I don’t think anyone’s believed testing has found all cases, but 5x sounds large in a work of asymptomatic testing. I strongly suspect that most negative lateral flows are not recorded. I wonder if this is yet another assumption chosen to fit the right result?
Look at this. We also have real world data from NYC, which also has Omicron
“But new hospitalizations and deaths are averaging well below their spring 2020 peak and even where they were this time last year, during a winter wave that came as vaccinations were just beginning, city data shows.
“Mount Sinai Health System emergency rooms had seen about 20% more patients – with all conditions – in recent days, according to Dr Eric Legome, who oversees two of the network’s seven ERs. But at least so far, he said, “We’re seeing a lot more treat-and-release” coronavirus patients than in earlier waves.
“Many are looking for tests, help with mild or moderate symptoms, or monoclonal antibody treatment, but very few require oxygen or a hospital stay, said Legome.”
To hell with the stupid models. Real life says This isn’t so bad. If they still lock us down, despite the hard evidence, I will personally REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED til he weeps
Plus the USA has done less than half the number of boosters the UK has.
In return for which Davey would no doubt hope to be Deputy PM to a PM Starmer if he needed LD support in a hung parliament to form a government
Confidence and Supply at most, though even that didn't save the DUP in 2019.
I think Labour minority government, and neither SNP nor LD would bring it down in the short term, though possibly would vote down specific bills. Labour wouldn't therefore table anything too controversial.
Sounds like a competent, centre-ground administration to me. Let's have at it
Are you serious. What do labour offer ? What do labour offer communities in towns, former red wall communities. They are a metropolitan big city based party. They are a party who sub contract policies to lobby groups like Stonewall and Greenpeace. They have, as of now, nothing to offer working class communities in the towns up and down the country. They need to come up with something. Not culture war crap but jobs, prospects, improving and levelling up.
They offer a level of competence somewhere above 'absolutely bloody useless'. For me that is enough right now. I literally cannot think of any way they could be worse than the current shambles.
Do they, they have yet to demonstrate it. They haven’t had to. The Tories plight is all of their own making and, quite frankly, not being the Tories isn’t enough in my view for these areas. We need something more concrete. I think Rochdale Pioneers is right and turnout will be down in these areas.
"We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions".
This is the end of SAGE isn't it?
They are done with this admittance.
What's wrong with that? It's not in itself an unreasonable statement, or is there some context I am missing? Modelling, for instance, a scenario of 100% 90 year olds living each on their own without seeing anyone else would be a perfectly logical possibility, but it would be of no practical use and therefore not worth the time (except as a teaching example as part of a step in developing understanding of modelling).
If the decision was reached by informed decision makers without pressure then modelling useful scenarios might be ok.
In the real world the decisions are reached by a cycle of media reporting worst case scenarios as expected, and even scientists competing for media air time by making the strongest predictions, which then ramps up political pressure on decision makers who often have little scientific, statistical or data understanding.
Some interesting stats from the Javid interview on Sky.
Basically the government / advisers are working on the premise that rather than rough 3x infections to cases, that Omicron is 5-6x.
And that 90% of those in hospital "that need the most care" (whatever that exactly means, perhaps ICU?) are unvaccinated.
Can you please clarify the second sentence? Must be me, but I can't work it out - do you mean that 1/5 or 1/6 of infections produce cases of symptoms or what?
Not quite. It means a combination of asymptomatic and those that don't take tests for whatever reason.
My thoughts were previously we used to talk about ~x3 multiplier....but now lots of people are LFT testing left, right and centre, which you would think would be picking up lots more of the previously undiscovered asymptomatic cases.
Ah, thanks, so the reported cases in the official stats really represent 5 or 6 times as many cases in the real world (both er asymptomatic and not reported).
Yes. Which I thought sounded incredibly high given we now do 1.5 million tests a day. And if it is correct, this wave won't take long to get through everybody.
It just struck me as very large multiplier. But Trevor Philips didn't ask Javid for really any more information about it.
This is interesting. I don’t think anyone’s believed testing has found all cases, but 5x sounds large in a work of asymptomatic testing. I strongly suspect that most negative lateral flows are not recorded. I wonder if this is yet another assumption chosen to fit the right result?
Look at this. We also have real world data from NYC, which also has Omicron
“But new hospitalizations and deaths are averaging well below their spring 2020 peak and even where they were this time last year, during a winter wave that came as vaccinations were just beginning, city data shows.
“Mount Sinai Health System emergency rooms had seen about 20% more patients – with all conditions – in recent days, according to Dr Eric Legome, who oversees two of the network’s seven ERs. But at least so far, he said, “We’re seeing a lot more treat-and-release” coronavirus patients than in earlier waves.
“Many are looking for tests, help with mild or moderate symptoms, or monoclonal antibody treatment, but very few require oxygen or a hospital stay, said Legome.”
To hell with the stupid models. Real life says This isn’t so bad. If they still lock us down, despite the hard evidence, I will personally REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED til he weeps
This is the point Fraser Nelson was making about the SAGE models, they simple use the most negative inputs and present that as evidence for lockdown. Any positive inputs are simply ignored as "not relevant to the decision making process" they are putting their finger on the scale and saying 6000 people per day will die.
The circling of the wagons this morning on the media by the "modelling" community is something to behold. It is being spun as its basically the governments fault, they don't ask for the right things.
Yes, they've been caught out in a massive lie and are trying to pass the buck. The advisors are tipping the scales in favour of lockdown, now they've been caught red handed putting their finger on the scale and calling it a prediction.
The only people that seem to be relatively pro-lockdown are me and a couple of others and I say this despite it probably destroying my mental health.
PB is not pro lockdown at all, Leon is just making things up, surprise surprise
No-one who isn't mad is in favour of unnecessary lockdown. The question whether it is necessary isn't getting much airing here, where it doesn't matter, nor in the political arena, where it does matter.
What is telling is that most who are against lockdown now have been against it for most of the last year, and those who are in favour now have been in favour for most of the last year. I am not sure the real scientific risks which have changed greatly in the last three weeks, and may do so each day as we learn more about the virus, make much impact on either side, it is more of an emotional and personal decision about which "side" to be on perhaps.
Absolutely not true. I accepted the first 3 lockdowns, even as they got progressively grimmer - and the last one nearly broke me
I accepted the medical necessity
Now? I have changed my mind because the facts have changed
1. We have vaccines and boosters 2. We have hard data from SA - and now from NYC - showing that this variant isn’t so bad 3. We now know “some” of the enormous social, medical, economic costs of lockdown, and why they are so evil
Some interesting stats from the Javid interview on Sky.
Basically the government / advisers are working on the premise that rather than rough 3x infections to cases, that Omicron is 5-6x.
And that 90% of those in hospital "that need the most care" (whatever that exactly means, perhaps ICU?) are unvaccinated.
Can you please clarify the second sentence? Must be me, but I can't work it out - do you mean that 1/5 or 1/6 of infections produce cases of symptoms or what?
Not quite. It means a combination of asymptomatic and those that don't take tests for whatever reason.
My thoughts were previously we used to talk about ~x3 multiplier....but now lots of people are LFT testing left, right and centre, which you would think would be picking up lots more of the previously undiscovered asymptomatic cases.
Ah, thanks, so the reported cases in the official stats really represent 5 or 6 times as many cases in the real world (both er asymptomatic and not reported).
Yes. Which I thought sounded incredibly high given we now do 1.5 million tests a day. And if it is correct, this wave won't take long to get through everybody.
It just struck me as very large multiplier. But Trevor Philips didn't ask Javid for really any more information about it.
This is interesting. I don’t think anyone’s believed testing has found all cases, but 5x sounds large in a work of asymptomatic testing. I strongly suspect that most negative lateral flows are not recorded. I wonder if this is yet another assumption chosen to fit the right result?
Look at this. We also have real world data from NYC, which also has Omicron
“But new hospitalizations and deaths are averaging well below their spring 2020 peak and even where they were this time last year, during a winter wave that came as vaccinations were just beginning, city data shows.
“Mount Sinai Health System emergency rooms had seen about 20% more patients – with all conditions – in recent days, according to Dr Eric Legome, who oversees two of the network’s seven ERs. But at least so far, he said, “We’re seeing a lot more treat-and-release” coronavirus patients than in earlier waves.
“Many are looking for tests, help with mild or moderate symptoms, or monoclonal antibody treatment, but very few require oxygen or a hospital stay, said Legome.”
To hell with the stupid models. Real life says This isn’t so bad. If they still lock us down, despite the hard evidence, I will personally REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED til he weeps
This is the point Fraser Nelson was making about the SAGE models, they simple use the most negative inputs and present that as evidence for lockdown. Any positive inputs are simply ignored as "not relevant to the decision making process" they are putting their finger on the scale and saying 6000 people per day will die.
The circling of the wagons this morning on the media by the "modelling" community is something to behold. It is being spun as its basically the governments fault, they don't ask for the right things.
I do have a certain amount of sympathy with that view, based on personal experience - the client often doesn't ask the right questions of the model, especially when the client is as technically unsophisticated as the Government is - but only a certain amount: two years into this process, they should really by now have figured out how to present the information that will actually be useful, regardless of the question asked.
Cabinet member: Can I ask if you have run this model using real world data from SA?
It isn't exactly rocket science, needing a degree in further maths is it?
Some interesting stats from the Javid interview on Sky.
Basically the government / advisers are working on the premise that rather than rough 3x infections to cases, that Omicron is 5-6x.
And that 90% of those in hospital "that need the most care" (whatever that exactly means, perhaps ICU?) are unvaccinated.
Can you please clarify the second sentence? Must be me, but I can't work it out - do you mean that 1/5 or 1/6 of infections produce cases of symptoms or what?
Not quite. It means a combination of asymptomatic and those that don't take tests for whatever reason.
My thoughts were previously we used to talk about ~x3 multiplier....but now lots of people are LFT testing left, right and centre, which you would think would be picking up lots more of the previously undiscovered asymptomatic cases.
Ah, thanks, so the reported cases in the official stats really represent 5 or 6 times as many cases in the real world (both er asymptomatic and not reported).
Yes. Which I thought sounded incredibly high given we now do 1.5 million tests a day. And if it is correct, this wave won't take long to get through everybody.
It just struck me as very large multiplier. But Trevor Philips didn't ask Javid for really any more information about it.
This is interesting. I don’t think anyone’s believed testing has found all cases, but 5x sounds large in a work of asymptomatic testing. I strongly suspect that most negative lateral flows are not recorded. I wonder if this is yet another assumption chosen to fit the right result?
Look at this. We also have real world data from NYC, which also has Omicron
“But new hospitalizations and deaths are averaging well below their spring 2020 peak and even where they were this time last year, during a winter wave that came as vaccinations were just beginning, city data shows.
“Mount Sinai Health System emergency rooms had seen about 20% more patients – with all conditions – in recent days, according to Dr Eric Legome, who oversees two of the network’s seven ERs. But at least so far, he said, “We’re seeing a lot more treat-and-release” coronavirus patients than in earlier waves.
“Many are looking for tests, help with mild or moderate symptoms, or monoclonal antibody treatment, but very few require oxygen or a hospital stay, said Legome.”
To hell with the stupid models. Real life says This isn’t so bad. If they still lock us down, despite the hard evidence, I will personally REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED til he weeps
This is the point Fraser Nelson was making about the SAGE models, they simple use the most negative inputs and present that as evidence for lockdown. Any positive inputs are simply ignored as "not relevant to the decision making process" they are putting their finger on the scale and saying 6000 people per day will die.
The only people that can stop this madness are the parliamentary Tory party. They need to open the door and show Boris the revolver is on the table, waiting by the whisky bottle
His choice. If he locks down, he knows what comes next
A national government with Starmer as deputy PM?
I share the concerns but putting it simply it appears to have been decided that there is conclusive evidence that omicron spreads more rapidly than delta. At the same time they don't believe the evidence for less severity is conclusive yet (if likely) and so that isn't being worked into the models.
In return for which Davey would no doubt hope to be Deputy PM to a PM Starmer if he needed LD support in a hung parliament to form a government
Confidence and Supply at most, though even that didn't save the DUP in 2019.
I think Labour minority government, and neither SNP nor LD would bring it down in the short term, though possibly would vote down specific bills. Labour wouldn't therefore table anything too controversial.
Sounds like a competent, centre-ground administration to me. Let's have at it
Are you serious. What do labour offer ? What do labour offer communities in towns, former red wall communities. They are a metropolitan big city based party. They are a party who sub contract policies to lobby groups like Stonewall and Greenpeace. They have, as of now, nothing to offer working class communities in the towns up and down the country. They need to come up with something. Not culture war crap but jobs, prospects, improving and levelling up.
They offer a level of competence somewhere above 'absolutely bloody useless'. For me that is enough right now. I literally cannot think of any way they could be worse than the current shambles.
Some interesting stats from the Javid interview on Sky.
Basically the government / advisers are working on the premise that rather than rough 3x infections to cases, that Omicron is 5-6x.
And that 90% of those in hospital "that need the most care" (whatever that exactly means, perhaps ICU?) are unvaccinated.
Can you please clarify the second sentence? Must be me, but I can't work it out - do you mean that 1/5 or 1/6 of infections produce cases of symptoms or what?
Not quite. It means a combination of asymptomatic and those that don't take tests for whatever reason.
My thoughts were previously we used to talk about ~x3 multiplier....but now lots of people are LFT testing left, right and centre, which you would think would be picking up lots more of the previously undiscovered asymptomatic cases.
Ah, thanks, so the reported cases in the official stats really represent 5 or 6 times as many cases in the real world (both er asymptomatic and not reported).
Yes. Which I thought sounded incredibly high given we now do 1.5 million tests a day. And if it is correct, this wave won't take long to get through everybody.
It just struck me as very large multiplier. But Trevor Philips didn't ask Javid for really any more information about it.
This is interesting. I don’t think anyone’s believed testing has found all cases, but 5x sounds large in a work of asymptomatic testing. I strongly suspect that most negative lateral flows are not recorded. I wonder if this is yet another assumption chosen to fit the right result?
Look at this. We also have real world data from NYC, which also has Omicron
“But new hospitalizations and deaths are averaging well below their spring 2020 peak and even where they were this time last year, during a winter wave that came as vaccinations were just beginning, city data shows.
“Mount Sinai Health System emergency rooms had seen about 20% more patients – with all conditions – in recent days, according to Dr Eric Legome, who oversees two of the network’s seven ERs. But at least so far, he said, “We’re seeing a lot more treat-and-release” coronavirus patients than in earlier waves.
“Many are looking for tests, help with mild or moderate symptoms, or monoclonal antibody treatment, but very few require oxygen or a hospital stay, said Legome.”
To hell with the stupid models. Real life says This isn’t so bad. If they still lock us down, despite the hard evidence, I will personally REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED til he weeps
This is the point Fraser Nelson was making about the SAGE models, they simple use the most negative inputs and present that as evidence for lockdown. Any positive inputs are simply ignored as "not relevant to the decision making process" they are putting their finger on the scale and saying 6000 people per day will die.
The circling of the wagons this morning on the media by the "modelling" community is something to behold. It is being spun as its basically the governments fault, they don't ask for the right things.
I do have a certain amount of sympathy with that view, based on personal experience - the client often doesn't ask the right questions of the model, especially when the client is as technically unsophisticated as the Government is - but only a certain amount: two years into this process, they should really by now have figured out how to present the information that will actually be useful, regardless of the question asked.
Well also remember it isn't actually the government commissioning the nuts and bolts of this stuff, it all goes through the SAGE process. So there is already a layer of scientific advisers who are supposed to translate a government minister saying tell me what's happening with Omicron spread into a more formal terms of reference.
It also doesn't excuse stuff like tell me the impact of a 2 week firebreak...600 to 106k lives saved in 3 months....tell the me impact of do nothing versus Omicron...peak of 600 to 6k daily deaths...I mean that is just nonsense whatever the terms of reference are.
@kyf_100 ’s very powerful testimony shows how much damage on mental health is being inflicted. For all the talk about mental health being a priority, it’s clear it is low down on the list of priorities.
Also, I’m sick of middle class public sector professionals with a guaranteed wage and guaranteed pension telling everyone else that they have to sacrifice. Maybe they can show the courage of their convictions by offering to voluntarily give up a percentage of their very generous pension donations with the cash being used to support those suffering disproportionately from the crisis.
Some interesting stats from the Javid interview on Sky.
Basically the government / advisers are working on the premise that rather than rough 3x infections to cases, that Omicron is 5-6x.
And that 90% of those in hospital "that need the most care" (whatever that exactly means, perhaps ICU?) are unvaccinated.
Can you please clarify the second sentence? Must be me, but I can't work it out - do you mean that 1/5 or 1/6 of infections produce cases of symptoms or what?
Not quite. It means a combination of asymptomatic and those that don't take tests for whatever reason.
My thoughts were previously we used to talk about ~x3 multiplier....but now lots of people are LFT testing left, right and centre, which you would think would be picking up lots more of the previously undiscovered asymptomatic cases.
Ah, thanks, so the reported cases in the official stats really represent 5 or 6 times as many cases in the real world (both er asymptomatic and not reported).
Yes. Which I thought sounded incredibly high given we now do 1.5 million tests a day. And if it is correct, this wave won't take long to get through everybody.
It just struck me as very large multiplier. But Trevor Philips didn't ask Javid for really any more information about it.
This is interesting. I don’t think anyone’s believed testing has found all cases, but 5x sounds large in a work of asymptomatic testing. I strongly suspect that most negative lateral flows are not recorded. I wonder if this is yet another assumption chosen to fit the right result?
Look at this. We also have real world data from NYC, which also has Omicron
“But new hospitalizations and deaths are averaging well below their spring 2020 peak and even where they were this time last year, during a winter wave that came as vaccinations were just beginning, city data shows.
“Mount Sinai Health System emergency rooms had seen about 20% more patients – with all conditions – in recent days, according to Dr Eric Legome, who oversees two of the network’s seven ERs. But at least so far, he said, “We’re seeing a lot more treat-and-release” coronavirus patients than in earlier waves.
“Many are looking for tests, help with mild or moderate symptoms, or monoclonal antibody treatment, but very few require oxygen or a hospital stay, said Legome.”
To hell with the stupid models. Real life says This isn’t so bad. If they still lock us down, despite the hard evidence, I will personally REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED til he weeps
This is the point Fraser Nelson was making about the SAGE models, they simple use the most negative inputs and present that as evidence for lockdown. Any positive inputs are simply ignored as "not relevant to the decision making process" they are putting their finger on the scale and saying 6000 people per day will die.
The circling of the wagons this morning on the media by the "modelling" community is something to behold. It is being spun as its basically the governments fault, they don't ask for the right things.
I do have a certain amount of sympathy with that view, based on personal experience - the client often doesn't ask the right questions of the model, especially when the client is as technically unsophisticated as the Government is - but only a certain amount: two years into this process, they should really by now have figured out how to present the information that will actually be useful, regardless of the question asked.
Cabinet member: Can I ask if you have run this model using real world data from SA?
It isn't exactly rocket science, needing a degree in further maths is it?
But it does need an open mind and some functional numeracy.
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
Except that the actual real world evidence, first from SA, now from NYC, is that this isn’t an “oh shit” moment
SA you can ignore if you really want, as being too different. NYC not. Very similar to London except maybe fatter and less vaxxed
That Guardian article explicitly says the NY health system is “coping”. That’s the word they use. Coping.
The only people that seem to be relatively pro-lockdown are me and a couple of others and I say this despite it probably destroying my mental health.
PB is not pro lockdown at all, Leon is just making things up, surprise surprise
No-one who isn't mad is in favour of unnecessary lockdown. The question whether it is necessary isn't getting much airing here, where it doesn't matter, nor in the political arena, where it does matter.
What is telling is that most who are against lockdown now have been against it for most of the last year, and those who are in favour now have been in favour for most of the last year. I am not sure the real scientific risks which have changed greatly in the last three weeks, and may do so each day as we learn more about the virus, make much impact on either side, it is more of an emotional and personal decision about which "side" to be on perhaps.
Absolutely not true. I accepted the first 3 lockdowns, even as they got progressively grimmer - and the last one nearly broke me
I accepted the medical necessity
Now? I have changed my mind because the facts have changed
1. We have vaccines and boosters 2. We have hard data from SA - and now from NYC - showing that this variant isn’t so bad 3. We now know “some” of the enormous social, medical, economic costs of lockdown, and why they are so evil
Enough. Weather the storm
Come on, you have both called for and decried everything over the last two years. One day civilization is dead, we will never get back to normal. The next week it is life is fantastic and the pandemic was a blip that has no ongoing impact. And kept switching back between the two at least a dozen times. Works for you perhaps, but not an example of pragmatic support for decision making at all.
Some interesting stats from the Javid interview on Sky.
Basically the government / advisers are working on the premise that rather than rough 3x infections to cases, that Omicron is 5-6x.
And that 90% of those in hospital "that need the most care" (whatever that exactly means, perhaps ICU?) are unvaccinated.
Can you please clarify the second sentence? Must be me, but I can't work it out - do you mean that 1/5 or 1/6 of infections produce cases of symptoms or what?
Not quite. It means a combination of asymptomatic and those that don't take tests for whatever reason.
My thoughts were previously we used to talk about ~x3 multiplier....but now lots of people are LFT testing left, right and centre, which you would think would be picking up lots more of the previously undiscovered asymptomatic cases.
Ah, thanks, so the reported cases in the official stats really represent 5 or 6 times as many cases in the real world (both er asymptomatic and not reported).
Yes. Which I thought sounded incredibly high given we now do 1.5 million tests a day. And if it is correct, this wave won't take long to get through everybody.
It just struck me as very large multiplier. But Trevor Philips didn't ask Javid for really any more information about it.
This is interesting. I don’t think anyone’s believed testing has found all cases, but 5x sounds large in a work of asymptomatic testing. I strongly suspect that most negative lateral flows are not recorded. I wonder if this is yet another assumption chosen to fit the right result?
Look at this. We also have real world data from NYC, which also has Omicron
“But new hospitalizations and deaths are averaging well below their spring 2020 peak and even where they were this time last year, during a winter wave that came as vaccinations were just beginning, city data shows.
“Mount Sinai Health System emergency rooms had seen about 20% more patients – with all conditions – in recent days, according to Dr Eric Legome, who oversees two of the network’s seven ERs. But at least so far, he said, “We’re seeing a lot more treat-and-release” coronavirus patients than in earlier waves.
“Many are looking for tests, help with mild or moderate symptoms, or monoclonal antibody treatment, but very few require oxygen or a hospital stay, said Legome.”
To hell with the stupid models. Real life says This isn’t so bad. If they still lock us down, despite the hard evidence, I will personally REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED til he weeps
This is the point Fraser Nelson was making about the SAGE models, they simple use the most negative inputs and present that as evidence for lockdown. Any positive inputs are simply ignored as "not relevant to the decision making process" they are putting their finger on the scale and saying 6000 people per day will die.
The circling of the wagons this morning on the media by the "modelling" community is something to behold. It is being spun as its basically the governments fault, they don't ask for the right things.
I do have a certain amount of sympathy with that view, based on personal experience - the client often doesn't ask the right questions of the model, especially when the client is as technically unsophisticated as the Government is - but only a certain amount: two years into this process, they should really by now have figured out how to present the information that will actually be useful, regardless of the question asked.
Cabinet member: Can I ask if you have run this model using real world data from SA?
It isn't exactly rocket science, needing a degree in further maths is it?
I am very disappointed in Javid seemingly not even questioning some of this stuff. The HSA "model" was so clearly BS they have now had to withdraw it 2 days later when even Ed Conway was saying hold on this seems a load of nonsense. Javid supposed to have at least some background in understanding numbers. This isn't PM Peppa Pig we are talking about.
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
A data model isn't evidence, RP. It's a model, it contains no real data, just a bunch of forecasts based on some subset of inputs. Last night the head of one of the SAGE committees admitted they use the most pessimistic inputs because it best informs decision making, whatever that means.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
Lockdown til the summer again is a realistic (likely?) possibility now.
Not really. We have a vaccination protocol (2 jabs + boosters) that is >98% effective in preventing hospitalisation, but omicron is so transmissible - if it could maintain its initial transmission rate (which it won't) then it would infect everybody in Britain within 6 weeks - that it's going to cause a short sharp shock to health provision through a combination of demand and knocking out staff. To get a flavour, from the CEO of NHS Providers https://twitter.com/ChrisCEOHopson/status/1472297080672722954 "London NHS pressure mounting rapidly. Hospitalised covid patients up 30% in week vs national 4%. At 1,534 yesterday (vs 8k in Jan'21 peak). Covid linked staff absences up 140% from 1,900 Sunday to 4,700 Thurs. Some trusts now having to postpone non essential activity...Trusts beyond full stretch doing three things at once, each of which is a massive task by itself. Cope with huge pressure in non-covid care (e.g. urgent care and care backlogs). Exponentially expand booster vaccination campaign, at top speed, working with local govt partners....And get ready for rapid onset of potentially large numbers of new omicron hospitalised covid patients with very large numbers of staff on omicron related sick absence. Trust leaders, as always, doing all they can to provide best possible care in a very pressured context...Important to understand it's not just hospital trusts beyond full stretch. Same applies to community, mental health and ambulance trusts too. For example, London Ambulance Service is taking c2,500 more calls a day than it usually does alongside significant staff absences...Trust leaders tell us the vast majority of hospitalised covid patients in London are not vaccinated, which they find frustrating. Especially since it prevents their trusts from providing the best possible care to all those who need it, covid and non-covid patients alike"
So it looks like we're heading for a real crisis in early January, but will be over the worst of it by the end of the month. All that can be done at this stage is short-term measures to flatten the curve - but after January omicron, at least, looks manageable.
Part of the problem is that omicron spreads like wildfire in hospitals https://twitter.com/docsuzy/status/1471521039771439105 Word from the front line trenches: omicron spreads like wildfire. Omicron went from one patient in a ward, to 8 pts and 4 staff infected overnight to 5 wards full (mostly hospital acquired)4 days later. Monday was horrible Tuesday worse.
The only people that seem to be relatively pro-lockdown are me and a couple of others and I say this despite it probably destroying my mental health.
PB is not pro lockdown at all, Leon is just making things up, surprise surprise
No-one who isn't mad is in favour of unnecessary lockdown. The question whether it is necessary isn't getting much airing here, where it doesn't matter, nor in the political arena, where it does matter.
What is telling is that most who are against lockdown now have been against it for most of the last year, and those who are in favour now have been in favour for most of the last year. I am not sure the real scientific risks which have changed greatly in the last three weeks, and may do so each day as we learn more about the virus, make much impact on either side, it is more of an emotional and personal decision about which "side" to be on perhaps.
I think I disagree on the scientific risks changing in the last three weeks. The new models are properly scary. There's a huge account of uncertainty about them but I'm not inclined to dismiss them simply because they're too scary.
I suspect what will happen is that lockdown will be resisted until the shitstorm can longer be denied, or it doesn't happen. Nevertheless on the evidence I'm seeing, lockdown is compelling.
Every previous time the government was too slow to react rather overreacted. The past isn't a guide to the present etc.
"We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions".
This is the end of SAGE isn't it?
They are done with this admittance.
What's wrong with that? It's not in itself an unreasonable statement, or is there some context I am missing? Modelling, for instance, a scenario of 100% 90 year olds living each on their own without seeing anyone else would be a perfectly logical possibility, but it would be of no practical use and therefore not worth the time (except as a teaching example as part of a step in developing understanding of modelling).
As I understand what the Spectator seem to have unearthed is they only use inputs to models that lead to scary scenarios because, they seem to think, it is only those models that produce outputs which show a decision needs to be made.
It is fecking Alice in Wonderland frankly.
But that doesn't make sense. They wouldn't know what the output was till they did the input. The Speccy seems to be accusing them of picking between results.
"We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions".
This is the end of SAGE isn't it?
They are done with this admittance.
What's wrong with that? It's not in itself an unreasonable statement, or is there some context I am missing? Modelling, for instance, a scenario of 100% 90 year olds living each on their own without seeing anyone else would be a perfectly logical possibility, but it would be of no practical use and therefore not worth the time (except as a teaching example as part of a step in developing understanding of modelling).
As I understand what the Spectator seem to have unearthed is they only use inputs to models that lead to scary scenarios because, they seem to think, it is only those models that produce outputs which show a decision needs to be made.
It is fecking Alice in Wonderland frankly.
But that doesn't make sense. They wouldn't know what the output was till they did the input. The Speccy seems to be accusing them of picking between results.
I think the Spectator's point is that they should show all the models which will presumably show better and worse outcomes.
But the modellers point out in response that they model what they are told to model.
The only people that seem to be relatively pro-lockdown are me and a couple of others and I say this despite it probably destroying my mental health.
PB is not pro lockdown at all, Leon is just making things up, surprise surprise
No-one who isn't mad is in favour of unnecessary lockdown. The question whether it is necessary isn't getting much airing here, where it doesn't matter, nor in the political arena, where it does matter.
What is telling is that most who are against lockdown now have been against it for most of the last year, and those who are in favour now have been in favour for most of the last year. I am not sure the real scientific risks which have changed greatly in the last three weeks, and may do so each day as we learn more about the virus, make much impact on either side, it is more of an emotional and personal decision about which "side" to be on perhaps.
Absolutely not true. I accepted the first 3 lockdowns, even as they got progressively grimmer - and the last one nearly broke me
I accepted the medical necessity
Now? I have changed my mind because the facts have changed
1. We have vaccines and boosters 2. We have hard data from SA - and now from NYC - showing that this variant isn’t so bad 3. We now know “some” of the enormous social, medical, economic costs of lockdown, and why they are so evil
Enough. Weather the storm
Come on, you have both called for and decried everything over the last two years. One day civilization is dead, we will never get back to normal. The next week it is life is fantastic and the pandemic was a blip that has no ongoing impact. And kept switching back between the two at least a dozen times. Works for you perhaps, but not an example of pragmatic support for decision making at all.
Sure
But what I say is also true
I supported and reluctantly accepted the first 3 lockdowns, despite my increasing loathing of them. I looked at the data and sighed and yielded
I do not support this proposed new lockdown. It is not justified
"We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions".
This is the end of SAGE isn't it?
They are done with this admittance.
What's wrong with that? It's not in itself an unreasonable statement, or is there some context I am missing? Modelling, for instance, a scenario of 100% 90 year olds living each on their own without seeing anyone else would be a perfectly logical possibility, but it would be of no practical use and therefore not worth the time (except as a teaching example as part of a step in developing understanding of modelling).
As I understand what the Spectator seem to have unearthed is they only use inputs to models that lead to scary scenarios because, they seem to think, it is only those models that produce outputs which show a decision needs to be made.
It is fecking Alice in Wonderland frankly.
But that doesn't make sense. They wouldn't know what the output was till they did the input. The Speccy seems to be accusing them of picking between results.
Of course you know what the output will be by the inputs, at least for the people who write the model, you know the weightings of the inputs.
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
I don't know anyone who wants a lockdown, there are some people that seem to think this is an outcome anyone actually wants. I find this remarkable.
Some interesting stats from the Javid interview on Sky.
Basically the government / advisers are working on the premise that rather than rough 3x infections to cases, that Omicron is 5-6x.
And that 90% of those in hospital "that need the most care" (whatever that exactly means, perhaps ICU?) are unvaccinated.
Can you please clarify the second sentence? Must be me, but I can't work it out - do you mean that 1/5 or 1/6 of infections produce cases of symptoms or what?
Not quite. It means a combination of asymptomatic and those that don't take tests for whatever reason.
My thoughts were previously we used to talk about ~x3 multiplier....but now lots of people are LFT testing left, right and centre, which you would think would be picking up lots more of the previously undiscovered asymptomatic cases.
Ah, thanks, so the reported cases in the official stats really represent 5 or 6 times as many cases in the real world (both er asymptomatic and not reported).
Yes. Which I thought sounded incredibly high given we now do 1.5 million tests a day. And if it is correct, this wave won't take long to get through everybody.
It just struck me as very large multiplier. But Trevor Philips didn't ask Javid for really any more information about it.
This is interesting. I don’t think anyone’s believed testing has found all cases, but 5x sounds large in a work of asymptomatic testing. I strongly suspect that most negative lateral flows are not recorded. I wonder if this is yet another assumption chosen to fit the right result?
Look at this. We also have real world data from NYC, which also has Omicron
“But new hospitalizations and deaths are averaging well below their spring 2020 peak and even where they were this time last year, during a winter wave that came as vaccinations were just beginning, city data shows.
“Mount Sinai Health System emergency rooms had seen about 20% more patients – with all conditions – in recent days, according to Dr Eric Legome, who oversees two of the network’s seven ERs. But at least so far, he said, “We’re seeing a lot more treat-and-release” coronavirus patients than in earlier waves.
“Many are looking for tests, help with mild or moderate symptoms, or monoclonal antibody treatment, but very few require oxygen or a hospital stay, said Legome.”
To hell with the stupid models. Real life says This isn’t so bad. If they still lock us down, despite the hard evidence, I will personally REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED til he weeps
This is the point Fraser Nelson was making about the SAGE models, they simple use the most negative inputs and present that as evidence for lockdown. Any positive inputs are simply ignored as "not relevant to the decision making process" they are putting their finger on the scale and saying 6000 people per day will die.
The circling of the wagons this morning on the media by the "modelling" community is something to behold. It is being spun as its basically the governments fault, they don't ask for the right things.
I do have a certain amount of sympathy with that view, based on personal experience - the client often doesn't ask the right questions of the model, especially when the client is as technically unsophisticated as the Government is - but only a certain amount: two years into this process, they should really by now have figured out how to present the information that will actually be useful, regardless of the question asked.
Cabinet member: Can I ask if you have run this model using real world data from SA?
It isn't exactly rocket science, needing a degree in further maths is it?
I think the issue is more about judgment than technical modelling acumen. It's not that hard to build a mathematical model that converts inputs like transmission speed, fatality rates etc into a prediction, but it's much harder to do that effectively based on limited data. As far as I can see, there are a few simple issues with the modelling that SAGE are currently relying on:
1) Everyone is terrified of the coming public inquiry, and it's biasing their parameter selections towards the most pessimistic versions possible 2) There is a reluctance to use real-world data over data from lab trials - the latter is easier to defend if challenged, but the former is likely to be far more useful 3) No-one seems very good at communicating uncertainty - quoting 95% confidence intervals is all very well, but it's useless when the inputs have huge degrees of secondary uncertainty attached, because basically all you're doing is modelling the fact that you don't know what the state of the world is currently, so the future is even more uncertain. Saying that deaths could max out at between 200 and 2,000 per day is not helpful because it's just a reflection of the inputs, not the model outputs.
What they need to do is start focusing more on scenario outcomes, based on specific sets of plausible inputs, and stop relying so much on stochastic models until they have sufficient confidence in the parameters to produce credible outcomes.
The only people that seem to be relatively pro-lockdown are me and a couple of others and I say this despite it probably destroying my mental health.
PB is not pro lockdown at all, Leon is just making things up, surprise surprise
No-one who isn't mad is in favour of unnecessary lockdown. The question whether it is necessary isn't getting much airing here, where it doesn't matter, nor in the political arena, where it does matter.
What is telling is that most who are against lockdown now have been against it for most of the last year, and those who are in favour now have been in favour for most of the last year. I am not sure the real scientific risks which have changed greatly in the last three weeks, and may do so each day as we learn more about the virus, make much impact on either side, it is more of an emotional and personal decision about which "side" to be on perhaps.
Absolutely not true. I accepted the first 3 lockdowns, even as they got progressively grimmer - and the last one nearly broke me
I accepted the medical necessity
Now? I have changed my mind because the facts have changed
1. We have vaccines and boosters 2. We have hard data from SA - and now from NYC - showing that this variant isn’t so bad 3. We now know “some” of the enormous social, medical, economic costs of lockdown, and why they are so evil
Enough. Weather the storm
Sean mate, you do pogo around between perspectives, and I do respect the "I have changed my mind because the facts have changed" line. Its critical in life.
What I'm trying to understand is the mindset of Googlers like your good self who have taken in your case your writing and fine locations / dining experience and turned yourself into someone who can say with a straight face that "We have hard data from SA - and now from NYC - showing that this variant isn’t so bad".
Basic question - do we? And I don't mean "I googled this so its true". I mean peer-reviewed, "yup it's valid we can all stand down from red alert" data which is applicable to the UK here and now in mid December.
Covid fucks the health sector. Fucks public health. Destroys all the advances they have made in treating everything that isn't Covid. Yet if I believe the Googlers they are basically making up the data suggesting oh shit because they want to lock us down forever. And thus destroy all the advances in medicine they have spent their careers making.
I don't get it. I don't for a minute think Whitty et al get everything right. But on something like this they are far more likely to know about it than me or thee.
@kyf_100 ’s very powerful testimony shows how much damage on mental health is being inflicted. For all the talk about mental health being a priority, it’s clear it is low down on the list of priorities.
Also, I’m sick of middle class public sector professionals with a guaranteed wage and guaranteed pension telling everyone else that they have to sacrifice. Maybe they can show the courage of their convictions by offering to voluntarily give up a percentage of their very generous pension donations with the cash being used to support those suffering disproportionately from the crisis.
Heh, thanks. I'm much better now, thanks to good friends and several months of near-normality, though the thought we are heading into yet another two or three months minimum of the same bleakness fills me with utter terror. I don't want to slide back down into that dark, dark place again. Because next time I'm not sure I'll get out again.
We were told if we got the jabs, it would end. Then we were told if we got the booster, it would end. Now... when does it end?
Leon you're the most inconsistent person here, pretending you've been in any way consistent in your views is taking us all for fools. It's embarrassing.
Lockdown til the summer again is a realistic (likely?) possibility now.
Not really. We have a vaccination protocol (2 jabs + boosters) that is >98% effective in preventing hospitalisation, but omicron is so transmissible - if it could maintain its initial transmission rate (which it won't) then it would infect everybody in Britain within 6 weeks - that it's going to cause a short sharp shock to health provision through a combination of demand and knocking out staff. To get a flavour, from the CEO of NHS Providers https://twitter.com/ChrisCEOHopson/status/1472297080672722954 "London NHS pressure mounting rapidly. Hospitalised covid patients up 30% in week vs national 4%. At 1,534 yesterday (vs 8k in Jan'21 peak). Covid linked staff absences up 140% from 1,900 Sunday to 4,700 Thurs. Some trusts now having to postpone non essential activity...Trusts beyond full stretch doing three things at once, each of which is a massive task by itself. Cope with huge pressure in non-covid care (e.g. urgent care and care backlogs). Exponentially expand booster vaccination campaign, at top speed, working with local govt partners....And get ready for rapid onset of potentially large numbers of new omicron hospitalised covid patients with very large numbers of staff on omicron related sick absence. Trust leaders, as always, doing all they can to provide best possible care in a very pressured context...Important to understand it's not just hospital trusts beyond full stretch. Same applies to community, mental health and ambulance trusts too. For example, London Ambulance Service is taking c2,500 more calls a day than it usually does alongside significant staff absences...Trust leaders tell us the vast majority of hospitalised covid patients in London are not vaccinated, which they find frustrating. Especially since it prevents their trusts from providing the best possible care to all those who need it, covid and non-covid patients alike"
So it looks like we're heading for a real crisis in early January, but will be over the worst of it by the end of the month. All that can be done at this stage is short-term measures to flatten the curve - but after January omicron, at least, looks manageable.
Part of the problem is that omicron spreads like wildfire in hospitals https://twitter.com/docsuzy/status/1471521039771439105 Word from the front line trenches: omicron spreads like wildfire. Omicron went from one patient in a ward, to 8 pts and 4 staff infected overnight to 5 wards full (mostly hospital acquired)4 days later. Monday was horrible Tuesday worse.
@kyf_100 ’s very powerful testimony shows how much damage on mental health is being inflicted. For all the talk about mental health being a priority, it’s clear it is low down on the list of priorities.
Also, I’m sick of middle class public sector professionals with a guaranteed wage and guaranteed pension telling everyone else that they have to sacrifice. Maybe they can show the courage of their convictions by offering to voluntarily give up a percentage of their very generous pension donations with the cash being used to support those suffering disproportionately from the crisis.
Heh, thanks. I'm much better now, thanks to good friends and several months of near-normality, though the thought we are heading into yet another two or three months minimum of the same bleakness fills me with utter terror. I don't want to slide back down into that dark, dark place again. Because next time I'm not sure I'll get out again.
We were told if we got the jabs, it would end. Then we were told if we got the booster, it would end. Now... when does it end?
I don't necessarily agree with everything you say but I do agree with the highlighted.
The Government need to decide what parameters determine when we have restrictions. If there aren't any, then they need to say so and we can see the outcome.
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
A data model isn't evidence, RP. It's a model, it contains no real data, just a bunch of forecasts based on some subset of inputs. Last night the head of one of the SAGE committees admitted they use the most pessimistic inputs because it best informs decision making, whatever that means.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
That’s the thing @MaxPB, the people on here who quote most about having to follow the science and the models are those who clearly have no clue about modelling and models. However, it is even worse than you state. Models are not only Not neutral but they reflect the biases of their creators. So, if you are a lockdown fanatic, guess what, your models will show the need for a lockdown.
What should be happening is consideration of a range of forecasts being produced from Individuals across all sides of the debate and then rigorous investigation / interpretation / prodding of the assumptions used.
The only people that seem to be relatively pro-lockdown are me and a couple of others and I say this despite it probably destroying my mental health.
PB is not pro lockdown at all, Leon is just making things up, surprise surprise
No-one who isn't mad is in favour of unnecessary lockdown. The question whether it is necessary isn't getting much airing here, where it doesn't matter, nor in the political arena, where it does matter.
What is telling is that most who are against lockdown now have been against it for most of the last year, and those who are in favour now have been in favour for most of the last year. I am not sure the real scientific risks which have changed greatly in the last three weeks, and may do so each day as we learn more about the virus, make much impact on either side, it is more of an emotional and personal decision about which "side" to be on perhaps.
I think I disagree on the scientific risks changing in the last three weeks. The new models are properly scary. There's a huge account of uncertainty about them but I'm not inclined to dismiss them simply because they're too scary.
I suspect what will happen is that lockdown will be resisted until the shitstorm can longer be denied, or it doesn't happen. Nevertheless on the evidence I'm seeing, lockdown is compelling.
Every previous time the government was too slow to react rather overreacted. The past isn't a guide to the present etc.
But models aren't real data, they've put their finger on the scales and scared you with big numbers. In what way are you following evidence then? The actual evidence is of very high three dose efficacy against severe symptoms, Omicron causing less need for mechanical ventilation and less use of the ICU due to less ability to replicate on lung tissue. In the models VE has been downrated by adding in an additional 6x loss in antibody binding efficiency and the evidence on less need for mechanical ventilation has simply been thrown out as "not important to the decision making process".
You're not a stupid person, the models are using incorrect inputs, why do you believe the numbers?
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
A data model isn't evidence, RP. It's a model, it contains no real data, just a bunch of forecasts based on some subset of inputs. Last night the head of one of the SAGE committees admitted they use the most pessimistic inputs because it best informs decision making, whatever that means.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
A data model is a model. Input data, apply scenarios, output projections. Remember that I am challenging you all as someone who has repeatedly said that I don't see the point in a lockdown here. But I simply cannot conceive why you think there is this vast conspiracy of medics trying to fuck over everything they have previously worked for.
The only people that seem to be relatively pro-lockdown are me and a couple of others and I say this despite it probably destroying my mental health.
PB is not pro lockdown at all, Leon is just making things up, surprise surprise
No-one who isn't mad is in favour of unnecessary lockdown. The question whether it is necessary isn't getting much airing here, where it doesn't matter, nor in the political arena, where it does matter.
What is telling is that most who are against lockdown now have been against it for most of the last year, and those who are in favour now have been in favour for most of the last year. I am not sure the real scientific risks which have changed greatly in the last three weeks, and may do so each day as we learn more about the virus, make much impact on either side, it is more of an emotional and personal decision about which "side" to be on perhaps.
I think I disagree on the scientific risks changing in the last three weeks. The new models are properly scary. There's a huge account of uncertainty about them but I'm not inclined to dismiss them simply because they're too scary.
I suspect what will happen is that lockdown will be resisted until the shitstorm can longer be denied, or it doesn't happen. Nevertheless on the evidence I'm seeing, lockdown is compelling.
Every previous time the government was too slow to react rather overreacted. The past isn't a guide to the present etc.
Precisely the lower bound of a very large range of likely outcomes is 3/4 of Delta peak admissions and half of peak Delta deaths with the upper bound several times Delta peak, on the Plan B scenario. Unless the worst likely case of a hypothetical more accurate model is better than this best case we should be locking down.
Back on what used to be a political betting website - the problem for Labour is they can't just rely on tactical voting LDs in many seats as the LDs are on such low numbers in so many seats. Yes, it may be the case Labour voters in CON-LD marginals will deliver a number of seats to the LDs and perhaps even enough to deprive the Conservatives of a majority.
We know of course the Conservatives will play the "Vote Starmer Get Sturgeon" card for all it's worth though it may not have the impact it once did. Labour need numbers of direct CON-LAB switchers (the Wirral South by election of early 1997 showed how potent such switching was or would be) and so far the evidence is the fragmenting Conservative voters is going to a number of places including Labour, the LDs, Greens and Reform UK.
Reflecting on North Shropshire, the betting markets and trades around that were fascinating. I think @Fairliered got on both the Conservatives and LDs at very decent prices. I hope those traded on the Conservatives early in the evening got out in time - I think @ping reported the LDs could be backed at 3 at one point - that's value.
Hopefully OGH can put up a thread on how the markets moved and the volumes played from 10pm onward.
Leon you're the most inconsistent person here, pretending you've been in any way consistent in your views is taking us all for fools. It's embarrassing.
Look, mate, you’re tedious, unintelligent and weird.
You are also fragile, so I do my very best not to respond to your sniping little remarks.
If you don’t mention me, I won’t mention you. Ever. Deal?
"We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions".
This is the end of SAGE isn't it?
They are done with this admittance.
What's wrong with that? It's not in itself an unreasonable statement, or is there some context I am missing? Modelling, for instance, a scenario of 100% 90 year olds living each on their own without seeing anyone else would be a perfectly logical possibility, but it would be of no practical use and therefore not worth the time (except as a teaching example as part of a step in developing understanding of modelling).
As I understand what the Spectator seem to have unearthed is they only use inputs to models that lead to scary scenarios because, they seem to think, it is only those models that produce outputs which show a decision needs to be made.
It is fecking Alice in Wonderland frankly.
But that doesn't make sense. They wouldn't know what the output was till they did the input. The Speccy seems to be accusing them of picking between results.
No, that isn't how modelling works in practice. If you understand the model you've built then you know to within a few percentage points how it will react if you change the inputs. Otherwise you have a "black box" and real problems with model governance.
The thing most people get wrong about mathematical modelling is that they aren't (or at least, shouldn't be) magic systems for working out answers to questions that are otherwise impossible - they are (again, should be) tools for structuring a problem, helping you understand it better, and illustrating how different possible approaches might produce different outcomes.
Lockdown til the summer again is a realistic (likely?) possibility now.
Not really. We have a vaccination protocol (2 jabs + boosters) that is >98% effective in preventing hospitalisation, but omicron is so transmissible - if it could maintain its initial transmission rate (which it won't) then it would infect everybody in Britain within 6 weeks - that it's going to cause a short sharp shock to health provision through a combination of demand and knocking out staff. To get a flavour, from the CEO of NHS Providers https://twitter.com/ChrisCEOHopson/status/1472297080672722954 "London NHS pressure mounting rapidly. Hospitalised covid patients up 30% in week vs national 4%. At 1,534 yesterday (vs 8k in Jan'21 peak). Covid linked staff absences up 140% from 1,900 Sunday to 4,700 Thurs. Some trusts now having to postpone non essential activity...Trusts beyond full stretch doing three things at once, each of which is a massive task by itself. Cope with huge pressure in non-covid care (e.g. urgent care and care backlogs). Exponentially expand booster vaccination campaign, at top speed, working with local govt partners....And get ready for rapid onset of potentially large numbers of new omicron hospitalised covid patients with very large numbers of staff on omicron related sick absence. Trust leaders, as always, doing all they can to provide best possible care in a very pressured context...Important to understand it's not just hospital trusts beyond full stretch. Same applies to community, mental health and ambulance trusts too. For example, London Ambulance Service is taking c2,500 more calls a day than it usually does alongside significant staff absences...Trust leaders tell us the vast majority of hospitalised covid patients in London are not vaccinated, which they find frustrating. Especially since it prevents their trusts from providing the best possible care to all those who need it, covid and non-covid patients alike"
So it looks like we're heading for a real crisis in early January, but will be over the worst of it by the end of the month. All that can be done at this stage is short-term measures to flatten the curve - but after January omicron, at least, looks manageable.
Part of the problem is that omicron spreads like wildfire in hospitals https://twitter.com/docsuzy/status/1471521039771439105 Word from the front line trenches: omicron spreads like wildfire. Omicron went from one patient in a ward, to 8 pts and 4 staff infected overnight to 5 wards full (mostly hospital acquired)4 days later. Monday was horrible Tuesday worse.
Yes, the next month is going to be really ugly in the hospitals, whatever the government decides to do. I can only wish @Foxy and his colleagues all the best (which sounds rather inadequate).
Some interesting stats from the Javid interview on Sky.
Basically the government / advisers are working on the premise that rather than rough 3x infections to cases, that Omicron is 5-6x.
And that 90% of those in hospital "that need the most care" (whatever that exactly means, perhaps ICU?) are unvaccinated.
Can you please clarify the second sentence? Must be me, but I can't work it out - do you mean that 1/5 or 1/6 of infections produce cases of symptoms or what?
I thought he meant the PCR tests were picking up 1/5 to 1/6 of all actual infections in the community.
@kyf_100 ’s very powerful testimony shows how much damage on mental health is being inflicted. For all the talk about mental health being a priority, it’s clear it is low down on the list of priorities.
Also, I’m sick of middle class public sector professionals with a guaranteed wage and guaranteed pension telling everyone else that they have to sacrifice. Maybe they can show the courage of their convictions by offering to voluntarily give up a percentage of their very generous pension donations with the cash being used to support those suffering disproportionately from the crisis.
Heh, thanks. I'm much better now, thanks to good friends and several months of near-normality, though the thought we are heading into yet another two or three months minimum of the same bleakness fills me with utter terror. I don't want to slide back down into that dark, dark place again. Because next time I'm not sure I'll get out again.
We were told if we got the jabs, it would end. Then we were told if we got the booster, it would end. Now... when does it end?
Great question. When does it end. As asked by Beth Rigby at that first BoJo news conference.
And of course I wish you all the very best.
I have been vocally anti lockdown since almost the beginning (not as much as @contrarian ) not because of the medical outcome it achieves. No shit you make it illegal to meet people and the number of infectious diseases plummets.
But because of the precedent. Cock up or conspiracy we are now in a place where lockdowns are a common tool of government.
All those "I was then I'm not now" PBers should hang their heads in shame because this was the obvious end point.
Some interesting stats from the Javid interview on Sky.
Basically the government / advisers are working on the premise that rather than rough 3x infections to cases, that Omicron is 5-6x.
And that 90% of those in hospital "that need the most care" (whatever that exactly means, perhaps ICU?) are unvaccinated.
Can you please clarify the second sentence? Must be me, but I can't work it out - do you mean that 1/5 or 1/6 of infections produce cases of symptoms or what?
I thought he meant the PCR tests were picking up 1/5 to 1/6 of all actual infections in the community.
No, that's definitely not what he was saying. He was referring to the 90k a day number you see, which is PCR + LFT.
Leon you're the most inconsistent person here, pretending you've been in any way consistent in your views is taking us all for fools. It's embarrassing.
Look, mate, you’re tedious, unintelligent and weird.
You are also fragile, so I do my very best not to respond to your sniping little remarks.
If you don’t mention me, I won’t mention you. Ever. Deal?
Why do you feel the need to be so unpleasant to one of our community who has had mental health issues he has, bravely, mentioned here.
Calling him fragile. Why ? What do you get from it ? You really are no one to all anyone tedious mate.
Go have a cry wank over some fucking dolphins you plum
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
Except that the actual real world evidence, first from SA, now from NYC, is that this isn’t an “oh shit” moment
SA you can ignore if you really want, as being too different. NYC not. Very similar to London except maybe fatter and less vaxxed
That Guardian article explicitly says the NY health system is “coping”. That’s the word they use. Coping.
Great! A medical system completely alien to our own is "coping". At the point where they were interviewed. Fab! And we all want that to be the case here. But as their system is different to ours we can't just say we'll be fine. We have to take their data and SA's data and everyone else's data and apply it to where we stand with our population and our capacity.
Again, you are suggesting that the medics are fabricating the results in their projections by being completely biased in the selection of data. Because they want to destroy everything they do and everything they work for by shutting down both society and health systems so that people die of cancer and sit in pain not having hip replacements etc etc etc.
Leon you're the most inconsistent person here, pretending you've been in any way consistent in your views is taking us all for fools. It's embarrassing.
Look, mate, you’re tedious, unintelligent and weird.
You are also fragile, so I do my very best not to respond to your sniping little remarks.
If you don’t mention me, I won’t mention you. Ever. Deal?
No I'm fed up with it frankly, if you want to have at me then go ahead.
You come on here and you scare people with your constant prophecies of doom and then the next day you're telling us how it's all made up and nonsense.
I am utterly fed up with it. You must get some kind of fun out of it but it is depressing.
Leon you're the most inconsistent person here, pretending you've been in any way consistent in your views is taking us all for fools. It's embarrassing.
Look, mate, you’re tedious, unintelligent and weird.
You are also fragile, so I do my very best not to respond to your sniping little remarks.
If you don’t mention me, I won’t mention you. Ever. Deal?
Why do you feel the need to be so unpleasant to one of our community who has had mental health issues he has, bravely, mentioned here.
Calling him fragile. Why ? What do you get from it ? You really are no one to all anyone tedious mate.
Go have a cry wank over some fucking dolphins you plum
The only people that seem to be relatively pro-lockdown are me and a couple of others and I say this despite it probably destroying my mental health.
PB is not pro lockdown at all, Leon is just making things up, surprise surprise
No-one who isn't mad is in favour of unnecessary lockdown. The question whether it is necessary isn't getting much airing here, where it doesn't matter, nor in the political arena, where it does matter.
What is telling is that most who are against lockdown now have been against it for most of the last year, and those who are in favour now have been in favour for most of the last year. I am not sure the real scientific risks which have changed greatly in the last three weeks, and may do so each day as we learn more about the virus, make much impact on either side, it is more of an emotional and personal decision about which "side" to be on perhaps.
Absolutely not true. I accepted the first 3 lockdowns, even as they got progressively grimmer - and the last one nearly broke me
I accepted the medical necessity
Now? I have changed my mind because the facts have changed
1. We have vaccines and boosters 2. We have hard data from SA - and now from NYC - showing that this variant isn’t so bad 3. We now know “some” of the enormous social, medical, economic costs of lockdown, and why they are so evil
Enough. Weather the storm
Come on, you have both called for and decried everything over the last two years. One day civilization is dead, we will never get back to normal. The next week it is life is fantastic and the pandemic was a blip that has no ongoing impact. And kept switching back between the two at least a dozen times. Works for you perhaps, but not an example of pragmatic support for decision making at all.
Sure
But what I say is also true
I supported and reluctantly accepted the first 3 lockdowns, despite my increasing loathing of them. I looked at the data and sighed and yielded
I do not support this proposed new lockdown. It is not justified
Same here. It was a very different question pre-vaccine as we had limited protection and an end in sight.
Now we have I think over half of adults triple vaccinated and that number going up rapidly by the day. Extreme curtalimemts of personal freedom (which things like banning indoor socialising very much are) require a high burden of proof in such a scenario.
That's not where we are today. We are in a position where we do not fully understand Omicron and its likely impact. We have some good evidence suggesting it will all blow over without crisis, and other analysis suggesting it could overwhelm the health system. There is no scientific consensus. There is lots of uncertainty.
In my view, lockdowns cannot be justified where there is so much uncertainty over their necessity. The issue is the scientific advisors are risk-averse and focussed on avoiding any possibility of a crisis. In my view it is wrong that the restrictions are even political options until we are already in crisis mode.
Leon you're the most inconsistent person here, pretending you've been in any way consistent in your views is taking us all for fools. It's embarrassing.
Look, mate, you’re tedious, unintelligent and weird.
You are also fragile, so I do my very best not to respond to your sniping little remarks.
If you don’t mention me, I won’t mention you. Ever. Deal?
No I'm fed up with it frankly, if you want to have at me then go ahead.
You come on here and you scare people with your constant prophecies of doom and then the next day you're telling us how it's all made up and nonsense.
I am utterly fed up with it. You must get some kind of fun out of it but it is depressing.
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
A data model isn't evidence, RP. It's a model, it contains no real data, just a bunch of forecasts based on some subset of inputs. Last night the head of one of the SAGE committees admitted they use the most pessimistic inputs because it best informs decision making, whatever that means.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
A data model is a model. Input data, apply scenarios, output projections. Remember that I am challenging you all as someone who has repeatedly said that I don't see the point in a lockdown here. But I simply cannot conceive why you think there is this vast conspiracy of medics trying to fuck over everything they have previously worked for.
The scientists are addicted to lockdowns, it's as someone said earlier today, if all you have is a hammer then everything is a nail.
I just can see no justification for producing modelled data which doesn't use the best estimates of vaccines efficacy data or best estimates of severe symptoms and hospitalisation data. There's a lot of ways to manipulate a data model and getting the answer you want to present, ignoring best estimate inputs and coming up with your own ones are the best way to do it.
Why they are doing it is up to you to decide, but we know that they have used a not correct set of inputs for vaccine efficacy and not correct set of inputs for Omicron hospitalisation characteristics for intensity and length of duration.
These are two very, very important factors in any model looking into a model for projecting hospital use, in fact they may be the most important factors. Using specifically incorrect inputs seems, to me, to be putting their finger on the scale to get a preferred output.
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
A data model isn't evidence, RP. It's a model, it contains no real data, just a bunch of forecasts based on some subset of inputs. Last night the head of one of the SAGE committees admitted they use the most pessimistic inputs because it best informs decision making, whatever that means.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
A data model is a model. Input data, apply scenarios, output projections. Remember that I am challenging you all as someone who has repeatedly said that I don't see the point in a lockdown here. But I simply cannot conceive why you think there is this vast conspiracy of medics trying to fuck over everything they have previously worked for.
They are not deliberately fucking things over, it is just unconscious bias in reality. If I take a pessimistic view of the virus, guess what - my assumptions that drive the model (infection rates etc) will reflect that.
@Endillion makes a very good point. Models are not supposed to produce answers, they are supposed to help build understanding. Ask a hedge fund manager whether they would base their decisions solely on analysts models (a situation where millions may rest on the decision) and the answer will be usually a resounding no
Leon you're the most inconsistent person here, pretending you've been in any way consistent in your views is taking us all for fools. It's embarrassing.
Look, mate, you’re tedious, unintelligent and weird.
You are also fragile, so I do my very best not to respond to your sniping little remarks.
If you don’t mention me, I won’t mention you. Ever. Deal?
Why do you feel the need to be so unpleasant to one of our community who has had mental health issues he has, bravely, mentioned here.
Calling him fragile. Why ? What do you get from it ? You really are no one to all anyone tedious mate.
Go have a cry wank over some fucking dolphins you plum
Thanks Taz but I really did ask for it this time.
I am totally fed up with Leon's posting.
No you didn’t ask for it CHB. You made an observation as to his posting manner and got a personal Attack back. Had he criticised your posting style or what you say I’d have said nothing,
His posting style is melodramatic hysteria. He overreacts to everything, I’m glad he’s an author, and a pretty good one too by all accounts, I doubt he’d ever cope in a job where he needs to make decisions under pressure.
@kyf_100 ’s very powerful testimony shows how much damage on mental health is being inflicted. For all the talk about mental health being a priority, it’s clear it is low down on the list of priorities.
Also, I’m sick of middle class public sector professionals with a guaranteed wage and guaranteed pension telling everyone else that they have to sacrifice. Maybe they can show the courage of their convictions by offering to voluntarily give up a percentage of their very generous pension donations with the cash being used to support those suffering disproportionately from the crisis.
Heh, thanks. I'm much better now, thanks to good friends and several months of near-normality, though the thought we are heading into yet another two or three months minimum of the same bleakness fills me with utter terror. I don't want to slide back down into that dark, dark place again. Because next time I'm not sure I'll get out again.
We were told if we got the jabs, it would end. Then we were told if we got the booster, it would end. Now... when does it end?
Great question. When does it end. As asked by Beth Rigby at that first BoJo news conference.
And of course I wish you all the very best.
I have been vocally anti lockdown since almost the beginning (not as much as @contrarian ) not because of the medical outcome it achieves. No shit you make it illegal to meet people and the number of infectious diseases plummets.
But because of the precedent. Cock up or conspiracy we are now in a place where lockdowns are a common tool of government.
All those "I was then I'm not now" PBers should hang their heads in shame because this was the obvious end point.
But this is plainly ridiculous. By your logic no one should ever support any lockdowns because they might become more acceptable and frequent
That’s like saying you should never go to hospital otherwise it will become a habit
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
A data model isn't evidence, RP. It's a model, it contains no real data, just a bunch of forecasts based on some subset of inputs. Last night the head of one of the SAGE committees admitted they use the most pessimistic inputs because it best informs decision making, whatever that means.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
That’s the thing @MaxPB, the people on here who quote most about having to follow the science and the models are those who clearly have no clue about modelling and models. However, it is even worse than you state. Models are not only Not neutral but they reflect the biases of their creators. So, if you are a lockdown fanatic, guess what, your models will show the need for a lockdown.
What should be happening is consideration of a range of forecasts being produced from Individuals across all sides of the debate and then rigorous investigation / interpretation / prodding of the assumptions used.
What's missing from all this is why anyone would be a 'lockdown fanatic'. To suggest such is to embrace the same kind of thinking that leads to 5G conspiracies and the like.
No one is a 'lockdown fanatic'. Eveyone takes their own view of risk - some tend to the risk-averse end of the spectrum, some tend to the opposite end.
It would be fair to argue that HMG, SAGE, the MSM, whoever..., are being too risk averse - that's a valid view, albeit a judgement view.
But to suggest there's some sort of conspiracy whereby some people are 'lockdown fanatics' is an extraordinary claim and, per Sagan, requires extraordinary evidence. I've not seen any yet.
Lockdown til the summer again is a realistic (likely?) possibility now.
Not really. We have a vaccination protocol (2 jabs + boosters) that is >98% effective in preventing hospitalisation, but omicron is so transmissible - if it could maintain its initial transmission rate (which it won't) then it would infect everybody in Britain within 6 weeks - that it's going to cause a short sharp shock to health provision through a combination of demand and knocking out staff. To get a flavour, from the CEO of NHS Providers https://twitter.com/ChrisCEOHopson/status/1472297080672722954 "London NHS pressure mounting rapidly. Hospitalised covid patients up 30% in week vs national 4%. At 1,534 yesterday (vs 8k in Jan'21 peak). Covid linked staff absences up 140% from 1,900 Sunday to 4,700 Thurs. Some trusts now having to postpone non essential activity...Trusts beyond full stretch doing three things at once, each of which is a massive task by itself. Cope with huge pressure in non-covid care (e.g. urgent care and care backlogs). Exponentially expand booster vaccination campaign, at top speed, working with local govt partners....And get ready for rapid onset of potentially large numbers of new omicron hospitalised covid patients with very large numbers of staff on omicron related sick absence. Trust leaders, as always, doing all they can to provide best possible care in a very pressured context...Important to understand it's not just hospital trusts beyond full stretch. Same applies to community, mental health and ambulance trusts too. For example, London Ambulance Service is taking c2,500 more calls a day than it usually does alongside significant staff absences...Trust leaders tell us the vast majority of hospitalised covid patients in London are not vaccinated, which they find frustrating. Especially since it prevents their trusts from providing the best possible care to all those who need it, covid and non-covid patients alike"
So it looks like we're heading for a real crisis in early January, but will be over the worst of it by the end of the month. All that can be done at this stage is short-term measures to flatten the curve - but after January omicron, at least, looks manageable.
Part of the problem is that omicron spreads like wildfire in hospitals https://twitter.com/docsuzy/status/1471521039771439105 Word from the front line trenches: omicron spreads like wildfire. Omicron went from one patient in a ward, to 8 pts and 4 staff infected overnight to 5 wards full (mostly hospital acquired)4 days later. Monday was horrible Tuesday worse.
Word from the front line trenches: omicron spreads like wildfire. Omicron went from one patient in a ward, to 8 pts and 4 staff infected overnight to 5 wards full (mostly hospital acquired)4 days later. Monday was horrible Tuesday worse.
Which puts a very different perspective on the numbers in hospital with Omicron.
The only people that seem to be relatively pro-lockdown are me and a couple of others and I say this despite it probably destroying my mental health.
PB is not pro lockdown at all, Leon is just making things up, surprise surprise
No-one who isn't mad is in favour of unnecessary lockdown. The question whether it is necessary isn't getting much airing here, where it doesn't matter, nor in the political arena, where it does matter.
What is telling is that most who are against lockdown now have been against it for most of the last year, and those who are in favour now have been in favour for most of the last year. I am not sure the real scientific risks which have changed greatly in the last three weeks, and may do so each day as we learn more about the virus, make much impact on either side, it is more of an emotional and personal decision about which "side" to be on perhaps.
I think I disagree on the scientific risks changing in the last three weeks. The new models are properly scary. There's a huge account of uncertainty about them but I'm not inclined to dismiss them simply because they're too scary.
I suspect what will happen is that lockdown will be resisted until the shitstorm can longer be denied, or it doesn't happen. Nevertheless on the evidence I'm seeing, lockdown is compelling.
Every previous time the government was too slow to react rather overreacted. The past isn't a guide to the present etc.
But models aren't real data, they've put their finger on the scales and scared you with big numbers. In what way are you following evidence then? The actual evidence is of very high three dose efficacy against severe symptoms, Omicron causing less need for mechanical ventilation and less use of the ICU due to less ability to replicate on lung tissue. In the models VE has been downrated by adding in an additional 6x loss in antibody binding efficiency and the evidence on less need for mechanical ventilation has simply been thrown out as "not important to the decision making process".
You're not a stupid person, the models are using incorrect inputs, why do you believe the numbers?
You're the pro modeller with all the contacts. What's your estimate on hospitalisations over the next two weeks and what's the uncertainty around that estimate, with the most plausible inputs? Should be easy for such a smart guy with such smart friends.
Some interesting stats from the Javid interview on Sky.
Basically the government / advisers are working on the premise that rather than rough 3x infections to cases, that Omicron is 5-6x.
And that 90% of those in hospital "that need the most care" (whatever that exactly means, perhaps ICU?) are unvaccinated.
Can you please clarify the second sentence? Must be me, but I can't work it out - do you mean that 1/5 or 1/6 of infections produce cases of symptoms or what?
Not quite. It means a combination of asymptomatic and those that don't take tests for whatever reason.
My thoughts were previously we used to talk about ~x3 multiplier....but now lots of people are LFT testing left, right and centre, which you would think would be picking up lots more of the previously undiscovered asymptomatic cases.
Ah, thanks, so the reported cases in the official stats really represent 5 or 6 times as many cases in the real world (both er asymptomatic and not reported).
Yes. Which I thought sounded incredibly high given we now do 1.5 million tests a day. And if it is correct, this wave won't take long to get through everybody.
It just struck me as very large multiplier. But Trevor Philips didn't ask Javid for really any more information about it.
This is interesting. I don’t think anyone’s believed testing has found all cases, but 5x sounds large in a work of asymptomatic testing. I strongly suspect that most negative lateral flows are not recorded. I wonder if this is yet another assumption chosen to fit the right result?
Look at this. We also have real world data from NYC, which also has Omicron
“But new hospitalizations and deaths are averaging well below their spring 2020 peak and even where they were this time last year, during a winter wave that came as vaccinations were just beginning, city data shows.
“Mount Sinai Health System emergency rooms had seen about 20% more patients – with all conditions – in recent days, according to Dr Eric Legome, who oversees two of the network’s seven ERs. But at least so far, he said, “We’re seeing a lot more treat-and-release” coronavirus patients than in earlier waves.
“Many are looking for tests, help with mild or moderate symptoms, or monoclonal antibody treatment, but very few require oxygen or a hospital stay, said Legome.”
To hell with the stupid models. Real life says This isn’t so bad. If they still lock us down, despite the hard evidence, I will personally REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED til he weeps
This is the point Fraser Nelson was making about the SAGE models, they simple use the most negative inputs and present that as evidence for lockdown. Any positive inputs are simply ignored as "not relevant to the decision making process" they are putting their finger on the scale and saying 6000 people per day will die.
But also: it takes time from infection to hospitalisation. If Omicron is spreading fast, there may not have been time yet for infections to turn into large numbers of hospitalisations. SA experience is promising; but we've seen many variations between the experiences of different countries throughout this pandemic.
Policymakers don't have the luxury of sitting back and waiting to see what happens.
Leon you're the most inconsistent person here, pretending you've been in any way consistent in your views is taking us all for fools. It's embarrassing.
Look, mate, you’re tedious, unintelligent and weird.
You are also fragile, so I do my very best not to respond to your sniping little remarks.
If you don’t mention me, I won’t mention you. Ever. Deal?
Why do you feel the need to be so unpleasant to one of our community who has had mental health issues he has, bravely, mentioned here.
Calling him fragile. Why ? What do you get from it ? You really are no one to all anyone tedious mate.
Go have a cry wank over some fucking dolphins you plum
Thanks Taz but I really did ask for it this time.
I am totally fed up with Leon's posting.
No you didn’t ask for it CHB. You made an observation as to his posting manner and got a personal Attack back. Had he criticised your posting style or what you say I’d have said nothing,
He spent two hours yesterday trying to dox me. Perhaps you missed it
He seems oddly obsessed.
However I will stick by my side of the bargain and from now on completely ignore him; it won’t be hard as it is - generally - what I do anyway
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
A data model isn't evidence, RP. It's a model, it contains no real data, just a bunch of forecasts based on some subset of inputs. Last night the head of one of the SAGE committees admitted they use the most pessimistic inputs because it best informs decision making, whatever that means.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
A data model is a model. Input data, apply scenarios, output projections. Remember that I am challenging you all as someone who has repeatedly said that I don't see the point in a lockdown here. But I simply cannot conceive why you think there is this vast conspiracy of medics trying to fuck over everything they have previously worked for.
The scientists are addicted to lockdowns, it's as someone said earlier today, if all you have is a hammer then everything is a nail.
I just can see no justification for producing modelled data which doesn't use the best estimates of vaccines efficacy data or best estimates of severe symptoms and hospitalisation data. There's a lot of ways to manipulate a data model and getting the answer you want to present, ignoring best estimate inputs and coming up with your own ones are the best way to do it.
Why they are doing it is up to you to decide, but we know that they have used a not correct set of inputs for vaccine efficacy and not correct set of inputs for Omicron hospitalisation characteristics for intensity and length of duration.
These are two very, very important factors in any model looking into a model for projecting hospital use, in fact they may be the most important factors. Using specifically incorrect inputs seems, to me, to be putting their finger on the scale to get a preferred output.
So the medics are addicted to destroying health outcomes and destroying the mental health of their colleagues. You sure?
I just can see no justification for producing modelled data which doesn't use the best estimates of vaccines efficacy data or best estimates of severe symptoms and hospitalisation data
I'm sure you can't. But you don't know what they know. Aren't trained as they are. Don't work with the NHS managers who can tell you by hospital how they are coping.
You are attacking the model because you don't like the supposed outcome. I get that you don't want more lockdown and neither do I. But what the fuck do you know about this? Or me? Or Leon? We are literally clueless, our opinion does not outweight actually experts with the actual data because we want to happen what we want to happen.
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
A data model isn't evidence, RP. It's a model, it contains no real data, just a bunch of forecasts based on some subset of inputs. Last night the head of one of the SAGE committees admitted they use the most pessimistic inputs because it best informs decision making, whatever that means.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
That’s the thing @MaxPB, the people on here who quote most about having to follow the science and the models are those who clearly have no clue about modelling and models. However, it is even worse than you state. Models are not only Not neutral but they reflect the biases of their creators. So, if you are a lockdown fanatic, guess what, your models will show the need for a lockdown.
What should be happening is consideration of a range of forecasts being produced from Individuals across all sides of the debate and then rigorous investigation / interpretation / prodding of the assumptions used.
What's missing from all this is why anyone would be a 'lockdown fanatic'. To suggest such is to embrace the same kind of thinking that leads to 5G conspiracies and the like.
No one is a 'lockdown fanatic'. Eveyone takes their own view of risk - some tend to the risk-averse end of the spectrum, some tend to the opposite end.
It would be fair to argue that HMG, SAGE, the MSM, whoever..., are being too risk averse - that's a valid view, albeit a judgement view.
But to suggest there's some sort of conspiracy whereby some people are 'lockdown fanatics' is an extraordinary claim and, per Sagan, requires extraordinary evidence. I've not seen any yet.
I think its fair to say some are in "Zero COVID" camp. And the only way to pursue such an approach is to pursue continuous very strict rules like China, Taiwan, New Zealand and Australia, in which
a) your border is permanently sealed. That means you can't just leave without good reason and with the very strict hotel quarantine procedure on return, that means some can't get back into their country for many months. and b) you go into lockdown when you detect only a couple of cases.
There isn't a half way house. Australia in particular have basically been in a constant state of lockdown now. Even inter-state travel banned and some cities only coming out of lockdown for brief periods.
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
A data model isn't evidence, RP. It's a model, it contains no real data, just a bunch of forecasts based on some subset of inputs. Last night the head of one of the SAGE committees admitted they use the most pessimistic inputs because it best informs decision making, whatever that means.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
That’s the thing @MaxPB, the people on here who quote most about having to follow the science and the models are those who clearly have no clue about modelling and models. However, it is even worse than you state. Models are not only Not neutral but they reflect the biases of their creators. So, if you are a lockdown fanatic, guess what, your models will show the need for a lockdown.
What should be happening is consideration of a range of forecasts being produced from Individuals across all sides of the debate and then rigorous investigation / interpretation / prodding of the assumptions used.
What's missing from all this is why anyone would be a 'lockdown fanatic'. To suggest such is to embrace the same kind of thinking that leads to 5G conspiracies and the like.
No one is a 'lockdown fanatic'. Eveyone takes their own view of risk - some tend to the risk-averse end of the spectrum, some tend to the opposite end.
It would be fair to argue that HMG, SAGE, the MSM, whoever..., are being too risk averse - that's a valid view, albeit a judgement view.
But to suggest there's some sort of conspiracy whereby some people are 'lockdown fanatics' is an extraordinary claim and, per Sagan, requires extraordinary evidence. I've not seen any yet.
Nor do I think there is a conspiracy. But to claim that the models can’t be questioned and just be obeyed is a fanaticism in itself.
In any event, you have focused on a phrase and not the overall point. Anyone who says that we must follow the models has no clue about modelling and it’s weaknesses. In its own way, that is a ls dangerous as the anti-Vaxxers
@kyf_100 ’s very powerful testimony shows how much damage on mental health is being inflicted. For all the talk about mental health being a priority, it’s clear it is low down on the list of priorities.
Also, I’m sick of middle class public sector professionals with a guaranteed wage and guaranteed pension telling everyone else that they have to sacrifice. Maybe they can show the courage of their convictions by offering to voluntarily give up a percentage of their very generous pension donations with the cash being used to support those suffering disproportionately from the crisis.
Heh, thanks. I'm much better now, thanks to good friends and several months of near-normality, though the thought we are heading into yet another two or three months minimum of the same bleakness fills me with utter terror. I don't want to slide back down into that dark, dark place again. Because next time I'm not sure I'll get out again.
We were told if we got the jabs, it would end. Then we were told if we got the booster, it would end. Now... when does it end?
Great question. When does it end. As asked by Beth Rigby at that first BoJo news conference.
And of course I wish you all the very best.
I have been vocally anti lockdown since almost the beginning (not as much as @contrarian ) not because of the medical outcome it achieves. No shit you make it illegal to meet people and the number of infectious diseases plummets.
But because of the precedent. Cock up or conspiracy we are now in a place where lockdowns are a common tool of government.
All those "I was then I'm not now" PBers should hang their heads in shame because this was the obvious end point.
But this is plainly ridiculous. By your logic no one should ever support any lockdowns because they might become more acceptable and frequent
That’s like saying you should never go to hospital otherwise it will become a habit
Bizarre
I'm not 100% sure anyone should ever support any lockdown.
What possible reason could there be to have a legal mandate about who you are allowed to have in your home.
You and The Francester are frankly doing more damage to yourselves than you realise with all your constant crappy posts.
Of course when faced with it, as many have, you lash out. And that's fine. But for you two, PB is a super unhealthy place but of course caveat emptor go for your lives. And let's have a funny charge that I am terrified and projecting and blah blah blah.
The only people that seem to be relatively pro-lockdown are me and a couple of others and I say this despite it probably destroying my mental health.
PB is not pro lockdown at all, Leon is just making things up, surprise surprise
No-one who isn't mad is in favour of unnecessary lockdown. The question whether it is necessary isn't getting much airing here, where it doesn't matter, nor in the political arena, where it does matter.
What is telling is that most who are against lockdown now have been against it for most of the last year, and those who are in favour now have been in favour for most of the last year. I am not sure the real scientific risks which have changed greatly in the last three weeks, and may do so each day as we learn more about the virus, make much impact on either side, it is more of an emotional and personal decision about which "side" to be on perhaps.
Absolutely not true. I accepted the first 3 lockdowns, even as they got progressively grimmer - and the last one nearly broke me
I accepted the medical necessity
Now? I have changed my mind because the facts have changed
1. We have vaccines and boosters 2. We have hard data from SA - and now from NYC - showing that this variant isn’t so bad 3. We now know “some” of the enormous social, medical, economic costs of lockdown, and why they are so evil
Enough. Weather the storm
Come on, you have both called for and decried everything over the last two years. One day civilization is dead, we will never get back to normal. The next week it is life is fantastic and the pandemic was a blip that has no ongoing impact. And kept switching back between the two at least a dozen times. Works for you perhaps, but not an example of pragmatic support for decision making at all.
“Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.”
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
A data model isn't evidence, RP. It's a model, it contains no real data, just a bunch of forecasts based on some subset of inputs. Last night the head of one of the SAGE committees admitted they use the most pessimistic inputs because it best informs decision making, whatever that means.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
A data model is a model. Input data, apply scenarios, output projections. Remember that I am challenging you all as someone who has repeatedly said that I don't see the point in a lockdown here. But I simply cannot conceive why you think there is this vast conspiracy of medics trying to fuck over everything they have previously worked for.
They are not deliberately fucking things over, it is just unconscious bias in reality. If I take a pessimistic view of the virus, guess what - my assumptions that drive the model (infection rates etc) will reflect that.
@Endillion makes a very good point. Models are not supposed to produce answers, they are supposed to help build understanding. Ask a hedge fund manager whether they would base their decisions solely on analysts models (a situation where millions may rest on the decision) and the answer will be usually a resounding no
This is nonsense, of course models produce answers, they produce an answer based on the inputs with which they are provided.
We can argue about the inputs and the algorithm to produce the answer - but the idea that modelling itself can't be trusted is absurd
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
A data model isn't evidence, RP. It's a model, it contains no real data, just a bunch of forecasts based on some subset of inputs. Last night the head of one of the SAGE committees admitted they use the most pessimistic inputs because it best informs decision making, whatever that means.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
A data model is a model. Input data, apply scenarios, output projections. Remember that I am challenging you all as someone who has repeatedly said that I don't see the point in a lockdown here. But I simply cannot conceive why you think there is this vast conspiracy of medics trying to fuck over everything they have previously worked for.
They are not deliberately fucking things over, it is just unconscious bias in reality. If I take a pessimistic view of the virus, guess what - my assumptions that drive the model (infection rates etc) will reflect that.
@Endillion makes a very good point. Models are not supposed to produce answers, they are supposed to help build understanding. Ask a hedge fund manager whether they would base their decisions solely on analysts models (a situation where millions may rest on the decision) and the answer will be usually a resounding no
The good news is that nobody is suggesting the models are producing answers, never mind blindly implementing these supposed answers without other considerations.
You say they aren't deliberately fucking things over, but that is the accusation. That they are "addicted to lockdowns" which destroy the capability of the health system to do anything other than Covid, smashes the mental and physical health of their colleagues and undoes all they work for when not doing these models.
In particular the chart showing admissions in London so far tracking the summer 'wave' not last winter's one. The argument for lockdown appears to be the need to be ahead of the curve. Only trouble is we don't know what sort of curve it will be. So it really comes down to a safety first argument.
I'm really getting very concerned that on a website full of very intelligent people, we're starting to veer into conspiracy.
That the scientists and modellers are somehow conspiring to model us into lockdown because they enjoy us being locked down.
This isn't very far off 5G or anti-vax conspiracy.
I agree with much of that. However: IMV some scientists do seem to be viewing things through a political prism, as well as a scientific one. That complicates matters, and they deserve criticism if they do that.
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
A data model isn't evidence, RP. It's a model, it contains no real data, just a bunch of forecasts based on some subset of inputs. Last night the head of one of the SAGE committees admitted they use the most pessimistic inputs because it best informs decision making, whatever that means.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
That’s the thing @MaxPB, the people on here who quote most about having to follow the science and the models are those who clearly have no clue about modelling and models. However, it is even worse than you state. Models are not only Not neutral but they reflect the biases of their creators. So, if you are a lockdown fanatic, guess what, your models will show the need for a lockdown.
What should be happening is consideration of a range of forecasts being produced from Individuals across all sides of the debate and then rigorous investigation / interpretation / prodding of the assumptions used.
What's missing from all this is why anyone would be a 'lockdown fanatic'. To suggest such is to embrace the same kind of thinking that leads to 5G conspiracies and the like.
No one is a 'lockdown fanatic'. Eveyone takes their own view of risk - some tend to the risk-averse end of the spectrum, some tend to the opposite end.
It would be fair to argue that HMG, SAGE, the MSM, whoever..., are being too risk averse - that's a valid view, albeit a judgement view.
But to suggest there's some sort of conspiracy whereby some people are 'lockdown fanatics' is an extraordinary claim and, per Sagan, requires extraordinary evidence. I've not seen any yet.
Lots of people, many millions in the UK, have improved work life balance, more money and more time for relationships under lockdown. It does not seem a stretch that a proportion of those people will want that lifestyle to continue even if for others lockdown life is miserable.
I'm really getting very concerned that on a website full of very intelligent people, we're starting to veer into conspiracy.
That the scientists and modellers are somehow conspiring to model us into lockdown because they enjoy us being locked down.
This isn't very far off 5G or anti-vax conspiracy.
As I said at the very beginning of this coming up for two years ago. If you had the PM, the CMO and the CSO on a podium every day at 5pm talking about mountaineering pretty soon mountaineering would be banned.
The scientists and medics have been given what they see as a golden opportunity to reduce deaths and who could possibly argue with that. Thing is, that at the moment is just about all they are concerned with. One fewer death is a huge win for them and the government, the government of all people, seem to be saying: go for it.
It is entirely rational that they should behave like this, it's not evil or anything it is just them doing what they are supposed to do.
But it's wrong from a broader socio-economic perspective.
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
A data model isn't evidence, RP. It's a model, it contains no real data, just a bunch of forecasts based on some subset of inputs. Last night the head of one of the SAGE committees admitted they use the most pessimistic inputs because it best informs decision making, whatever that means.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
A data model is a model. Input data, apply scenarios, output projections. Remember that I am challenging you all as someone who has repeatedly said that I don't see the point in a lockdown here. But I simply cannot conceive why you think there is this vast conspiracy of medics trying to fuck over everything they have previously worked for.
The scientists are addicted to lockdowns, it's as someone said earlier today, if all you have is a hammer then everything is a nail.
I just can see no justification for producing modelled data which doesn't use the best estimates of vaccines efficacy data or best estimates of severe symptoms and hospitalisation data. There's a lot of ways to manipulate a data model and getting the answer you want to present, ignoring best estimate inputs and coming up with your own ones are the best way to do it.
Why they are doing it is up to you to decide, but we know that they have used a not correct set of inputs for vaccine efficacy and not correct set of inputs for Omicron hospitalisation characteristics for intensity and length of duration.
These are two very, very important factors in any model looking into a model for projecting hospital use, in fact they may be the most important factors. Using specifically incorrect inputs seems, to me, to be putting their finger on the scale to get a preferred output.
I have to say @MaxPB you have got this completely spot on and it is scary to see people who clearly have not an idea of how modelling works being the biggest defenders of the models being produced with the added undercurrent of “if you don’t believe the models, you must be a conspiracy theorist”. It’s one of the most depressing parts of the whole debate.
@kyf_100 ’s very powerful testimony shows how much damage on mental health is being inflicted. For all the talk about mental health being a priority, it’s clear it is low down on the list of priorities.
Also, I’m sick of middle class public sector professionals with a guaranteed wage and guaranteed pension telling everyone else that they have to sacrifice. Maybe they can show the courage of their convictions by offering to voluntarily give up a percentage of their very generous pension donations with the cash being used to support those suffering disproportionately from the crisis.
Heh, thanks. I'm much better now, thanks to good friends and several months of near-normality, though the thought we are heading into yet another two or three months minimum of the same bleakness fills me with utter terror. I don't want to slide back down into that dark, dark place again. Because next time I'm not sure I'll get out again.
We were told if we got the jabs, it would end. Then we were told if we got the booster, it would end. Now... when does it end?
Great question. When does it end. As asked by Beth Rigby at that first BoJo news conference.
And of course I wish you all the very best.
I have been vocally anti lockdown since almost the beginning (not as much as @contrarian ) not because of the medical outcome it achieves. No shit you make it illegal to meet people and the number of infectious diseases plummets.
But because of the precedent. Cock up or conspiracy we are now in a place where lockdowns are a common tool of government.
All those "I was then I'm not now" PBers should hang their heads in shame because this was the obvious end point.
But this is plainly ridiculous. By your logic no one should ever support any lockdowns because they might become more acceptable and frequent
That’s like saying you should never go to hospital otherwise it will become a habit
Bizarre
I'm not 100% sure anyone should ever support any lockdown.
What possible reason could there be to have a legal mandate about who you are allowed to have in your home.
You and The Francester are frankly doing more damage to yourselves than you realise with all your constant crappy posts.
Of course when faced with it, as many have, you lash out. And that's fine. But for you two, PB is a super unhealthy place but of course caveat emptor go for your lives. And let's have a funny charge that I am terrified and projecting and blah blah blah.
Leon you're the most inconsistent person here, pretending you've been in any way consistent in your views is taking us all for fools. It's embarrassing.
Look, mate, you’re tedious, unintelligent and weird.
You are also fragile, so I do my very best not to respond to your sniping little remarks.
If you don’t mention me, I won’t mention you. Ever. Deal?
Why do you feel the need to be so unpleasant to one of our community who has had mental health issues he has, bravely, mentioned here.
Calling him fragile. Why ? What do you get from it ? You really are no one to all anyone tedious mate.
Go have a cry wank over some fucking dolphins you plum
Thanks Taz but I really did ask for it this time.
I am totally fed up with Leon's posting.
No you didn’t ask for it CHB. You made an observation as to his posting manner and got a personal Attack back. Had he criticised your posting style or what you say I’d have said nothing,
He spent two hours yesterday trying to dox me. Perhaps you missed it
He seems oddly obsessed.
However I will stick by my side of the bargain and from now on completely ignore him; it won’t be hard as it is - generally - what I do anyway
Leon, you're the one who keeps bringing up the fact that you're not somebody else, that you've just joined the site and you have some absurd identity. You keep putting it in our faces and you get annoyed when pointing it out.
I never doxed you, I never said who you were or had been before, I won't do that. Somebody else did, I did not.
@HYUFD out of interest, what level of restrictions would you accept?
Vaxports maybe but not another lockdown
What about rule of 6?
No
So you support a measure that has no impact on spread and the government forces people to present their paper, but not something that probably does have some and the government doesn't actually enforce it, its based on trust.
Spread is largely irrelevant, getting more people to get vaccinated and get their boosters is more important in avoiding hospitalisations rise
I think it rather debatable at this point how much vax passports will convince antivaxxers to get jabbed.
But surely the benefit of vax passports is that the most vulnerable to hospitalisation can have reduced access to areas that they are likely to catch the virus thus slowing it down amongst those most likely to overwhelm the health care system ?
Indeed, Vaxports for nightclubs, cafes, restraurants, bars, gyms, theatres, cinemas, concerts, sporting events etc effectively mean a lockdown for the unvaccinated only which is the fairest way. No mandatory vaccination but you have to accept another lockdown if you refuse to get jabbed and get your booster
It doesn't though. They just have to show a negative LFT from the past 48hrs... which we already know people can and do cheat.
The "state injectable" idiots will just not do the tests properly / share around negative ones from other people.
LFT rely on people being good faith actors, which those who have already done their civic duty and got vaccinated are....Piers Corbyn isn't.
I said vaxports not LFTs, if necessary vaxports only accepted for admission to large events and bars and cinemas and restaurants etc not even negative LFTs enough if you are unvaccinated
LFTs are the issue here. If you’re going to restrict areas to either those with vaccines or tests, then make them PCR tests administered at private clinics. No at-home tests nor LFTs. That way, there’s an actual cost associated with being unvaccinated.
That is certainly not levelling up. A far cheaper half way point would be to require a photo of the free LFT test rather than just the serial number.
It’s not supposed to be levelling up, it’s supposed to be making life a total pain in the arse if you’re not vaccinated.
In my part of the world, if you’re a government worker, or work in a public-facing job such as retail or hospitality, you have to have a PCR test at your own expense every 72 hours if you’re willingly unvaccinated.
Now that's an idea with possible mileage. That might just tip the people who aren't getting vaccines over the edge without forcing them to or denying them treatment. Which had seemed the alternatives up to now.
It’s a good idea in theory, but not sure (in the UK) it would survive the first Guardian editorial calling it racist, quickly picked up by footballers and Labour MPs for the areas of low vaccine take up.
Effective measures to address the disproportionately low vaccine take up and disproportionately high Covid death rate amongst ethnic minorities would be anything but racist. You'll find most on the left in support of such measures, just as we are in favour of addressing health inequalities in general.
And anyway you could go beyond a system of financial penalties by balancing it with financial rewards for getting a first or second vaccine and later on a booster, with the penalties helping fund the incentives.
Good to hear, but sadly there’s a large group of political opponents and commentators who can’t see past the idea that everything the government does is of malign thought.
They’d find a new Gina Miller, prepared to take the government to court over the racist and sexist outcomes caused by the policy, when what they are trying to do is encourage the unvaccinated to go get themselves jabbed.
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
A data model isn't evidence, RP. It's a model, it contains no real data, just a bunch of forecasts based on some subset of inputs. Last night the head of one of the SAGE committees admitted they use the most pessimistic inputs because it best informs decision making, whatever that means.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
A data model is a model. Input data, apply scenarios, output projections. Remember that I am challenging you all as someone who has repeatedly said that I don't see the point in a lockdown here. But I simply cannot conceive why you think there is this vast conspiracy of medics trying to fuck over everything they have previously worked for.
The scientists are addicted to lockdowns, it's as someone said earlier today, if all you have is a hammer then everything is a nail.
I just can see no justification for producing modelled data which doesn't use the best estimates of vaccines efficacy data or best estimates of severe symptoms and hospitalisation data. There's a lot of ways to manipulate a data model and getting the answer you want to present, ignoring best estimate inputs and coming up with your own ones are the best way to do it.
Why they are doing it is up to you to decide, but we know that they have used a not correct set of inputs for vaccine efficacy and not correct set of inputs for Omicron hospitalisation characteristics for intensity and length of duration.
These are two very, very important factors in any model looking into a model for projecting hospital use, in fact they may be the most important factors. Using specifically incorrect inputs seems, to me, to be putting their finger on the scale to get a preferred output.
So the medics are addicted to destroying health outcomes and destroying the mental health of their colleagues. You sure?
I just can see no justification for producing modelled data which doesn't use the best estimates of vaccines efficacy data or best estimates of severe symptoms and hospitalisation data
I'm sure you can't. But you don't know what they know. Aren't trained as they are. Don't work with the NHS managers who can tell you by hospital how they are coping.
You are attacking the model because you don't like the supposed outcome. I get that you don't want more lockdown and neither do I. But what the fuck do you know about this? Or me? Or Leon? We are literally clueless, our opinion does not outweight actually experts with the actual data because we want to happen what we want to happen.
I'm attacking the model because they aren't using the actually known data as inputs. As in these are known data points, they no longer need to be estimated so let's make them fixed entries in the model. We've suspected them of doing this in the past and last night the head of a SAGE actually confirmed it to Fraser Nelson.
Explain to me why you think the models have not used the actual data and instead used significantly more pessimistic modelled inputs?
A lot of talk about Omicron peaking in early January. People shutting themselves off to get through Christmas may slow that.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
A data model isn't evidence, RP. It's a model, it contains no real data, just a bunch of forecasts based on some subset of inputs. Last night the head of one of the SAGE committees admitted they use the most pessimistic inputs because it best informs decision making, whatever that means.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
That’s the thing @MaxPB, the people on here who quote most about having to follow the science and the models are those who clearly have no clue about modelling and models. However, it is even worse than you state. Models are not only Not neutral but they reflect the biases of their creators. So, if you are a lockdown fanatic, guess what, your models will show the need for a lockdown.
What should be happening is consideration of a range of forecasts being produced from Individuals across all sides of the debate and then rigorous investigation / interpretation / prodding of the assumptions used.
What's missing from all this is why anyone would be a 'lockdown fanatic'. To suggest such is to embrace the same kind of thinking that leads to 5G conspiracies and the like.
No one is a 'lockdown fanatic'. Eveyone takes their own view of risk - some tend to the risk-averse end of the spectrum, some tend to the opposite end.
It would be fair to argue that HMG, SAGE, the MSM, whoever..., are being too risk averse - that's a valid view, albeit a judgement view.
But to suggest there's some sort of conspiracy whereby some people are 'lockdown fanatics' is an extraordinary claim and, per Sagan, requires extraordinary evidence. I've not seen any yet.
Nor do I think there is a conspiracy. But to claim that the models can’t be questioned and just be obeyed is a fanaticism in itself.
In any event, you have focused on a phrase and not the overall point. Anyone who says that we must follow the models has no clue about modelling and it’s weaknesses. In its own way, that is a ls dangerous as the anti-Vaxxers
Who is saying "we must follow the models"? They are an input into the basket of factors that Whitty et al are using but they are not dictating to anyone.
Comments
It is fecking Alice in Wonderland frankly.
Much of the fury on this forum seems to be from people who aim it at the people presenting evidence they do not like. Damn these medics with their training and their data, they want to lock us away forever.
Do they? Really? Is the aim of the medical scientists collating this data to create a false narrative where all other medicine stops, all other treatment is pushed aside and all the advances they and their profession have made get shoved backwards? Really?
Its possible - and I know that for the people furiously denouncing it with their expertise in Google search they won't admit it - that the reason why the medics and scientists are reacting like this and the government are planning like this is because the data is that bad. So they have to imperil cancer treatment and elective surgery and everything else that isn't Covid because oh shit, rather than because they are "fascists".
Considering the availability and mass use of vaccines, and the extraordinarily high rate of transmission of the latest variant, I think a lockdown pretty well useless in the current situation - and the costs unjustifiable.
(I’ve largely avoided the recent arguments for the reasons you point out.)
In the real world the decisions are reached by a cycle of media reporting worst case scenarios as expected, and even scientists competing for media air time by making the strongest predictions, which then ramps up political pressure on decision makers who often have little scientific, statistical or data understanding.
I accepted the medical necessity
Now? I have changed my mind because the facts have changed
1. We have vaccines and boosters
2. We have hard data from SA - and now from NYC - showing that this variant isn’t so bad
3. We now know “some” of the enormous social, medical, economic costs of lockdown, and why they are so evil
Enough. Weather the storm
It isn't exactly rocket science, needing a degree in further maths is it?
I share the concerns but putting it simply it appears to have been decided that there is conclusive evidence that omicron spreads more rapidly than delta. At the same time they don't believe the evidence for less severity is conclusive yet (if likely) and so that isn't being worked into the models.
That is his opinion. It is not a fact.
It also doesn't excuse stuff like tell me the impact of a 2 week firebreak...600 to 106k lives saved in 3 months....tell the me impact of do nothing versus Omicron...peak of 600 to 6k daily deaths...I mean that is just nonsense whatever the terms of reference are.
Lord Frost doesn't seem to understand the new Tory voting coalition at all.
My best to @kyf_100
Also, I’m sick of middle class public sector professionals with a guaranteed wage and guaranteed pension telling everyone else that they have to sacrifice. Maybe they can show the courage of their convictions by offering to voluntarily give up a percentage of their very generous pension donations with the cash being used to support those suffering disproportionately from the crisis.
SA you can ignore if you really want, as being too different. NYC not. Very similar to London except maybe fatter and less vaxxed
That Guardian article explicitly says the NY health system is “coping”. That’s the word they use. Coping.
The worst one for me was using the third table in the Imperial vaccine study which has a made up further 6x reduction on antibody binding efficiency vs observation which gives VE of ~30% against death for Omicron vs actually observed VE of ~60% against death wrt Omicron. They are putting their finger on the scale to get their big scary numbers. The actual data emerging from Omicron isn't bad enough to warrant a lockdown so they added a 6x additional loss of binding efficiency to make it fit their narrative.
I suspect what will happen is that lockdown will be resisted until the shitstorm can longer be denied, or it doesn't happen. Nevertheless on the evidence I'm seeing, lockdown is compelling.
Every previous time the government was too slow to react rather overreacted. The past isn't a guide to the present etc.
But the modellers point out in response that they model what they are told to model.
This seems like attacking the wrong people
But what I say is also true
I supported and reluctantly accepted the first 3 lockdowns, despite my increasing loathing of them. I looked at the data and sighed and yielded
I do not support this proposed new lockdown. It is not justified
1) Everyone is terrified of the coming public inquiry, and it's biasing their parameter selections towards the most pessimistic versions possible
2) There is a reluctance to use real-world data over data from lab trials - the latter is easier to defend if challenged, but the former is likely to be far more useful
3) No-one seems very good at communicating uncertainty - quoting 95% confidence intervals is all very well, but it's useless when the inputs have huge degrees of secondary uncertainty attached, because basically all you're doing is modelling the fact that you don't know what the state of the world is currently, so the future is even more uncertain. Saying that deaths could max out at between 200 and 2,000 per day is not helpful because it's just a reflection of the inputs, not the model outputs.
What they need to do is start focusing more on scenario outcomes, based on specific sets of plausible inputs, and stop relying so much on stochastic models until they have sufficient confidence in the parameters to produce credible outcomes.
What I'm trying to understand is the mindset of Googlers like your good self who have taken in your case your writing and fine locations / dining experience and turned yourself into someone who can say with a straight face that "We have hard data from SA - and now from NYC - showing that this variant isn’t so bad".
Basic question - do we? And I don't mean "I googled this so its true". I mean peer-reviewed, "yup it's valid we can all stand down from red alert" data which is applicable to the UK here and now in mid December.
Covid fucks the health sector. Fucks public health. Destroys all the advances they have made in treating everything that isn't Covid. Yet if I believe the Googlers they are basically making up the data suggesting oh shit because they want to lock us down forever. And thus destroy all the advances in medicine they have spent their careers making.
I don't get it. I don't for a minute think Whitty et al get everything right. But on something like this they are far more likely to know about it than me or thee.
We were told if we got the jabs, it would end. Then we were told if we got the booster, it would end. Now... when does it end?
The Government need to decide what parameters determine when we have restrictions. If there aren't any, then they need to say so and we can see the outcome.
What should be happening is consideration of a range of forecasts being produced from
Individuals across all sides of the debate and then rigorous investigation / interpretation / prodding of the assumptions used.
You're not a stupid person, the models are using incorrect inputs, why do you believe the numbers?
Back on what used to be a political betting website - the problem for Labour is they can't just rely on tactical voting LDs in many seats as the LDs are on such low numbers in so many seats. Yes, it may be the case Labour voters in CON-LD marginals will deliver a number of seats to the LDs and perhaps even enough to deprive the Conservatives of a majority.
We know of course the Conservatives will play the "Vote Starmer Get Sturgeon" card for all it's worth though it may not have the impact it once did. Labour need numbers of direct CON-LAB switchers (the Wirral South by election of early 1997 showed how potent such switching was or would be) and so far the evidence is the fragmenting Conservative voters is going to a number of places including Labour, the LDs, Greens and Reform UK.
Reflecting on North Shropshire, the betting markets and trades around that were fascinating. I think @Fairliered got on both the Conservatives and LDs at very decent prices. I hope those traded on the Conservatives early in the evening got out in time - I think @ping reported the LDs could be backed at 3 at one point - that's value.
Hopefully OGH can put up a thread on how the markets moved and the volumes played from 10pm onward.
In which case the Government should say so and we can get on with living our lives.
You are also fragile, so I do my very best not to respond to your sniping little remarks.
If you don’t mention me, I won’t mention you. Ever. Deal?
The thing most people get wrong about mathematical modelling is that they aren't (or at least, shouldn't be) magic systems for working out answers to questions that are otherwise impossible - they are (again, should be) tools for structuring a problem, helping you understand it better, and illustrating how different possible approaches might produce different outcomes.
Hope all is well with you.
“New York reports 22,000 new Covid cases – but hospitals say they can cope
“Omicron surge leads to event cancellations and lines at testing sites but health system not yet under serious strain”
THEY CAN COPE
Why can’t we?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/19/new-york-22000-new-covid-cases-omicron-testing-hospitals-rockettes-snl
And of course I wish you all the very best.
I have been vocally anti lockdown since almost the beginning (not as much as @contrarian ) not because of the medical outcome it achieves. No shit you make it illegal to meet people and the number of infectious diseases plummets.
But because of the precedent. Cock up or conspiracy we are now in a place where lockdowns are a common tool of government.
All those "I was then I'm not now" PBers should hang their heads in shame because this was the obvious end point.
Calling him fragile. Why ? What do you get from it ? You really are no one to all anyone tedious mate.
Go have a cry wank over some fucking dolphins you plum
Again, you are suggesting that the medics are fabricating the results in their projections by being completely biased in the selection of data. Because they want to destroy everything they do and everything they work for by shutting down both society and health systems so that people die of cancer and sit in pain not having hip replacements etc etc etc.
Really?
You come on here and you scare people with your constant prophecies of doom and then the next day you're telling us how it's all made up and nonsense.
I am utterly fed up with it. You must get some kind of fun out of it but it is depressing.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211216-uk-minister-says-bds-will-be-outlawed/
Not very liberal.
I am totally fed up with Leon's posting.
Now we have I think over half of adults triple vaccinated and that number going up rapidly by the day. Extreme curtalimemts of personal freedom (which things like banning indoor socialising very much are) require a high burden of proof in such a scenario.
That's not where we are today. We are in a position where we do not fully understand Omicron and its likely impact. We have some good evidence suggesting it will all blow over without crisis, and other analysis suggesting it could overwhelm the health system. There is no scientific consensus. There is lots of uncertainty.
In my view, lockdowns cannot be justified where there is so much uncertainty over their necessity. The issue is the scientific advisors are risk-averse and focussed on avoiding any possibility of a crisis. In my view it is wrong that the restrictions are even political options until we are already in crisis mode.
I just can see no justification for producing modelled data which doesn't use the best estimates of vaccines efficacy data or best estimates of severe symptoms and hospitalisation data. There's a lot of ways to manipulate a data model and getting the answer you want to present, ignoring best estimate inputs and coming up with your own ones are the best way to do it.
Why they are doing it is up to you to decide, but we know that they have used a not correct set of inputs for vaccine efficacy and not correct set of inputs for Omicron hospitalisation characteristics for intensity and length of duration.
These are two very, very important factors in any model looking into a model for projecting hospital use, in fact they may be the most important factors. Using specifically incorrect inputs seems, to me, to be putting their finger on the scale to get a preferred output.
@Endillion makes a very good point. Models are not supposed to produce answers, they are supposed to help build understanding. Ask a hedge fund manager whether they would base their decisions solely on analysts models (a situation where millions may rest on the decision) and the answer will be usually a resounding no
His posting style is melodramatic hysteria. He overreacts to everything, I’m glad he’s an author, and a pretty good one too by all accounts, I doubt he’d ever cope in a job where he needs to make decisions under pressure.
That’s like saying you should never go to hospital otherwise it will become a habit
Bizarre
No one is a 'lockdown fanatic'. Eveyone takes their own view of risk - some tend to the risk-averse end of the spectrum, some tend to the opposite end.
It would be fair to argue that HMG, SAGE, the MSM, whoever..., are being too risk averse - that's a valid view, albeit a judgement view.
But to suggest there's some sort of conspiracy whereby some people are 'lockdown fanatics' is an extraordinary claim and, per Sagan, requires extraordinary evidence. I've not seen any yet.
Which puts a very different perspective on the numbers in hospital with Omicron.
Get it written down. Put up or shut up.
That the scientists and modellers are somehow conspiring to model us into lockdown because they enjoy us being locked down.
This isn't very far off 5G or anti-vax conspiracy.
Policymakers don't have the luxury of sitting back and waiting to see what happens.
He seems oddly obsessed.
However I will stick by my side of the bargain and from now on completely ignore him; it won’t be hard as it is - generally - what I do anyway
I just can see no justification for producing modelled data which doesn't use the best estimates of vaccines efficacy data or best estimates of severe symptoms and hospitalisation data
I'm sure you can't. But you don't know what they know. Aren't trained as they are. Don't work with the NHS managers who can tell you by hospital how they are coping.
You are attacking the model because you don't like the supposed outcome. I get that you don't want more lockdown and neither do I. But what the fuck do you know about this? Or me? Or Leon? We are literally clueless, our opinion does not outweight actually experts with the actual data because we want to happen what we want to happen.
a) your border is permanently sealed. That means you can't just leave without good reason and with the very strict hotel quarantine procedure on return, that means some can't get back into their country for many months.
and
b) you go into lockdown when you detect only a couple of cases.
There isn't a half way house. Australia in particular have basically been in a constant state of lockdown now. Even inter-state travel banned and some cities only coming out of lockdown for brief periods.
In any event, you have focused on a phrase and not the overall point. Anyone who says that we must follow the models has no clue about modelling and it’s weaknesses. In its own way, that is a ls dangerous as the anti-Vaxxers
What possible reason could there be to have a legal mandate about who you are allowed to have in your home.
You and The Francester are frankly doing more damage to yourselves than you realise with all your constant crappy posts.
Of course when faced with it, as many have, you lash out. And that's fine. But for you two, PB is a super unhealthy place but of course caveat emptor go for your lives. And let's have a funny charge that I am terrified and projecting and blah blah blah.
But you know it's true.
We can argue about the inputs and the algorithm to produce the answer - but the idea that modelling itself can't be trusted is absurd
You say they aren't deliberately fucking things over, but that is the accusation. That they are "addicted to lockdowns" which destroy the capability of the health system to do anything other than Covid, smashes the mental and physical health of their colleagues and undoes all they work for when not doing these models.
"authoritarianism, principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action. In government.
You would advocate against organisations choosing who they do business with.
https://twitter.com/drraghibali?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
In particular the chart showing admissions in London so far tracking the summer 'wave' not last winter's one. The argument for lockdown appears to be the need to be ahead of the curve. Only trouble is we don't know what sort of curve it will be. So it really comes down to a safety first argument.
Nobody wants a lockdown, not least any scientist with any connection to the NHS and the healthcare system.
I simply reject this line of accusation.
The scientists and medics have been given what they see as a golden opportunity to reduce deaths and who could possibly argue with that. Thing is, that at the moment is just about all they are concerned with. One fewer death is a huge win for them and the government, the government of all people, seem to be saying: go for it.
It is entirely rational that they should behave like this, it's not evil or anything it is just them doing what they are supposed to do.
But it's wrong from a broader socio-economic perspective.
I never doxed you, I never said who you were or had been before, I won't do that. Somebody else did, I did not.
They’d find a new Gina Miller, prepared to take the government to court over the racist and sexist outcomes caused by the policy, when what they are trying to do is encourage the unvaccinated to go get themselves jabbed.
Explain to me why you think the models have not used the actual data and instead used significantly more pessimistic modelled inputs?