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.
I do not think Chris Whitty - who has been attacked in recent days - is being political. As a man who still works on the NHS frontline, we should be in his debt that he is trying to keep us safe.
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.
Ha. Max is the expert on models but cries off when he's asked for a prediction. You sound like an expert too. What's your prediction for hospitalisations next week?
@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.
But you know it's true.
You’re projecting again
LOL touché.
But seriously. I know that you need a febrile atmosphere to produce your best-knapped flints but not everyone is as robust as you are, as many on PB have told us. Be careful how you wield your undoubted gifts on here.
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?
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 think that's an exaggeration. The real issue is that every single time these models have been compared to real world data they've been completely wrong, but nobody who modelled them is willing to admit that. Look at Pagel saying there would have been 100,000 cases a day, not 45,000, if people 'had used all the freedoms they were given.' Which is a lie, because they did use them. It was just that her model was a nonsense.
If you see somebody who gets every major judgement call wrong, and refuses to acknowledge it, and keeps churning out results that as a result are worthless, it seems reasonable to wonder if there is another motive.
And unfortunately, the answer is often 'yes.' For example, Pagel's models are designed to get her media attention, in which they have been brilliantly successful. These models are designed to outline the worst case scenario - but by failing to model other possible outcomes the government is being negligent.
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
On which point, I agree with you. Models are for guidance not obeyance.
It's a very tricky time. Omicron could yet be very dangerous or it could be a bit meh. I sincerely hope it's the latter but I sympathise with HMG on this. They are between a rock and a hard place.
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?
I assume that having posted here so clearly that you personally have seen both the assembled data and the actual model itself...?
"liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics."
"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.
No, because that's not what BDS means, at all. It's about pressure groups trying to bully organisations into not doing business with specific groups on the basis of their nationality, in a manner that is clearly racism masquerading as virtue. Which is why it's being banned.
The dyspeptic mood on PB shows, I think, that most of us are worried, if not frightened
The prospect of another grim winter lockdown is enough to spook anyone. It is nothing to be ashamed of
I’m getting the exact same mood from many friends on WhatsApp. “Please God not again”
For me it is the irritation at the thought of the government imposing these draconian restrictions. I disliked it (the implications for our freedoms) last time and I dislike it now.
As for the actual lockdown well I am very lucky and like many if not most on PB I have a charming world to retreat into. But a bit like champagne socialists wanting to help the poor, I am very very concerned both about the effects of lockdown on others and the liberty issues around lockdown.
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
On which point, I agree with you. Models are for guidance not obeyance.
It's a very tricky time. Omicron could yet be very dangerous or it could be a bit meh. I sincerely hope it's the latter but I sympathise with HMG on this. They are between a rock and a hard place.
Which is fine, but the issue is why only the most pessimistic scenarios are being presented rather than the full range. If all you give is negative scenarios then it makes the middle option really bad. If you give the full range of options from the most optimistic to most pessimistic at least an informed decision can be made.
@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.
But you know it's true.
You’re projecting again
LOL touché.
But seriously. I know that you need a febrile atmosphere to produce your best-knapped flints but not everyone is as robust as you are, as many on PB have told us. Be careful how you wield your undoubted gifts on here.
A point I shall ponder.
Meantime I have some actual WORK to do, and lots of it. And then my tax returns. Happy Days indeed.
@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?
The rubicon was crossed 19 months ago. We slipped in to a biosurveillance state. The power that the government, the pharmaceutical companies, and its various scientific advisors have is irresistable. Its mandate is based on the promise of safety and the freedom from avoidable death; and it has a lot of public support. Undoing all this will be difficult. The only ground for optimism is that, at this critical time, the Conservative party are in power. I am not being too dramatic in saying that the entire fate of the country is in the hands of their backbenchers; and they have proven themselves to be wise to the situation.
There is an implication from some that the models are purposefully created to get us to lockdown.
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.
Hello @CorrectHorseBattery i don’t think those like Max and myself are accusing scientists of deliberately distorting information.
What you might want to bear in mind though - and Max can correct me if I am wrong - is that the most scepticism re the modelling is coming from those of us who have numerous years’ direct experience of modelling and know its pitfalls and risks. I’ve said this before but you take a Unilever and get 20 different forecasts from 20 different analysts and all with access to the same information because the way they view that data reflect those individuals’ views.
The Government’s problem is not scientists deliberately distorting information but that they are not getting a diverse enough range of views . Instead they are getting information from a group who have a certain view that hasn’t changed during the pandemic - remember the doomsday scenarios from the early days - and , more importantly, do not seem inclined to learn from their earlier mistakes and tweak their modelling. That is a huge problem.
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.
I do not think Chris Whitty - who has been attacked in recent days - is being political. As a man who still works on the NHS frontline, we should be in his debt that he is trying to keep us safe.
Yep, I don't think Witty is one of them.
There's also a personal angle to this. Imagine being in a position where your conclusions could save - or cost - the lives of tens of thousands. The stress must be amazing. The data may be sterile, but the conclusions you make from it have very real consequences.
It's easy for us on here to chew the cud about what should be done. It's much more real for Witty et al.
I am quite happy to put this whole Leon identity business to bed if he'd only stop bringing it up
I don't think he does bring it up tbf, except to deny it, which I take to be for form's sake and potentially necessary for reasons known only to himself.
It's hard sometimes, as he is such a wind-up merchant*, but best to let it go if you can.
(*He's also at times the most entertaining PB poster by a mile, it should be said.)
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
I did miss it as I spent yesterday afternoon drinking craft beer and watching old episodes of the Bill using my strap on hard drive. The Don Beech/Boulton era was peak Bill.
So is it the canary in the coalmine again or does it not matter anymore? I've forgotten where we are
What's with the constant snarky remarks at the moment?
Zoe App have consistently been in the canary in the coalmine....that is why I pointed out I thought it was strange / interesting they hadn't picked up the wave in their usual manner. It wasn't to doubt there was a wave, but it was I think the first time they hadn't picked it up ahead of time.
Nobody doubts the really good work they do. My guess would be because it is revolves mainly around symptoms tracking (although they do their own testing) it probably been missing a lot more early cases.
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
The point is that you're not supposed to blindly follow the answer; you're supposed to interpret it along with the known model limitations and key uncertainties, plus all the available quantitative information. The problem is that, once the model has produced a number that's been widely published, it's very difficult for policymakers to ignore it, because it's then dead easy to beat them over the head with the model output if they do and the model turns out to have been right all along. Which both the modellers and policymakers know, and it's making everyone overly pessimistic, both in terms of estimating model parameters, and interpreting the 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.
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 think we are dealing with two different things here, firstly the statistical modelling (which as we all know can be skewed one way or another to encourage a certain outcome), and secondly lived experience.
The odds are good that the "lived experience" of those in government advocating for a second lockdown has not been that bad. The decision makers had big gardens, families, perhaps even a few secret drinkies with their colleagues. They are therefore biased towards lockdown on the basis of their own lived experience of it not being so bad.
Whereas those of us who have had a terrible experience of lockdown are more likely to say, bugger the models even if ten thousand people are dying a day, I'd rather drive down to the beach and walk out to sea with rocks in my pockets than suffer another lockdown. Even though that may not be the best outcome from a society-wide perspective.
The question we have to ask ourselves is, are the scientists really using modelling only, or does their lived experience contribute towards unconscious bias - i.e. they see worst case scenarios, want to save lives, think back to their own experience of lockdown as not being so bad, then plump for the models they think "save the most lives" because their own experience of lockdown is that it isn't so bad.
"liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics."
"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.
No, because that's not what BDS means, at all. It's about pressure groups trying to bully organisations into not doing business with specific groups on the basis of their nationality, in a manner that is clearly racism masquerading as virtue. Which is why it's being banned.
I'm sure elements within the movement are distasteful in the way they operate. But, banning the freedom to choose is the manner of an authoritarian.
Shouldn't organisations be free to choose to work with states who also behave distastefully?
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?
I assume that having posted here so clearly that you personally have seen both the assembled data and the actual model itself...?
The outputs yes, I had a read yesterday, the models are still locked away, they have refused peer review of them. The reason I'm more annoyed than usual is because the guy from SAGE literally said they don't model realistic scenarios that might be more positive because it doesn't inform decision making. That strikes me as trying to fix a policy outcome.
Scientists, in this pandemic, have a really, really important role and presenting all of the available evidence is extremely important. For a scientist to admit that, no, they won't do that is really shocking for me.
I am quite happy to put this whole Leon identity business to bed if he'd only stop bringing it up
I don't think he does bring it up tbf, except to deny it, which I take to be for form's sake and potentially necessary for reasons known only to himself.
It's hard sometimes, as he is such a wind-up merchant*, but best to let it go if you can.
(*He's also at times the most entertaining PB poster by a mile, it should be said.)
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.
I do not think Chris Whitty - who has been attacked in recent days - is being political. As a man who still works on the NHS frontline, we should be in his debt that he is trying to keep us safe.
Yep, I don't think Witty is one of them.
There's also a personal angle to this. Imagine being in a position where your conclusions could save - or cost - the lives of tens of thousands. The stress must be amazing. The data may be sterile, but the conclusions you make from it have very real consequences.
It's easy for us on here to chew the cud about what should be done. It's much more real for Witty et al.
Spot on.
There's also the dimension of: if you get it wrong one way people say you cost the country a lot of money and mental health; if you get it wrong the other way a lot of people die.
So is it the canary in the coalmine again or does it not matter anymore? I've forgotten where we are
What's with the constant snarky remarks at the moment?
Zoe App have consistently been in the canary in the coalmine....that is why I pointed out I thought it was strange / interesting they hadn't picked up the wave in their usual manner. It wasn't to doubt there was a wave, but it was I think the first time they hadn't picked it up ahead of time.
I am afraid I don't know what you mean. It was a genuine question as to whether the cases are important going forward or not. Please forgive any misunderstanding.
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
On which point, I agree with you. Models are for guidance not obeyance.
It's a very tricky time. Omicron could yet be very dangerous or it could be a bit meh. I sincerely hope it's the latter but I sympathise with HMG on this. They are between a rock and a hard place.
I’d agree with that and, as someone says, it’s very easy for us to pontificate.
I think though that SAGE should open up their models to scrutiny by outsiders to test and question their assumptions. I had that in my old job and it meant I was a much better analyst (and modeller) for it.
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.
I do not think Chris Whitty - who has been attacked in recent days - is being political. As a man who still works on the NHS frontline, we should be in his debt that he is trying to keep us safe.
Yep, I don't think Witty is one of them.
There's also a personal angle to this. Imagine being in a position where your conclusions could save - or cost - the lives of tens of thousands. The stress must be amazing. The data may be sterile, but the conclusions you make from it have very real consequences.
It's easy for us on here to chew the cud about what should be done. It's much more real for Witty et al.
Witty is seeing it from the perspective of people going into hospital and the impact that has on him must be terrible, as it is job to protect lives.
So is it the canary in the coalmine again or does it not matter anymore? I've forgotten where we are
What's with the constant snarky remarks at the moment?
Zoe App have consistently been in the canary in the coalmine....that is why I pointed out I thought it was strange / interesting they hadn't picked up the wave in their usual manner. It wasn't to doubt there was a wave, but it was I think the first time they hadn't picked it up ahead of time.
I am afraid I don't know what you mean. It was a genuine question as to whether the cases are important going forward or not. Please forgive any misunderstanding.
My guess would be because it is revolves mainly around symptoms tracking (although they do their own testing) it probably been missing a lot more early cases because they have been so mild. That's seems on the surface quite a positive thing.
Previous waves they were getting the red flashing warning signs 2 weeks before the actual PCR case numbers, because lots of people were reports some symptoms.
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?
I assume that having posted here so clearly that you personally have seen both the assembled data and the actual model itself...?
The outputs yes, I had a read yesterday, the models are still locked away, they have refused peer review of them. The reason I'm more annoyed than usual is because the guy from SAGE literally said they don't model realistic scenarios that might be more positive because it doesn't inform decision making. That strikes me as trying to fix a policy outcome.
Scientists, in this pandemic, have a really, really important role and presenting all of the available evidence is extremely important. For a scientist to admit that, no, they won't do that is really shocking for me.
So you have seen the outputs, don't like what they say, and that is proof that the inputs were wrong and the scientists rigged the model.
I am quite happy to put this whole Leon identity business to bed if he'd only stop bringing it up
You do seem to have this strange compulsion to restrict other’s freedom of action. What does it matter to you what @Leon calla himself on any given day?
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?
I assume that having posted here so clearly that you personally have seen both the assembled data and the actual model itself...?
The outputs yes, I had a read yesterday, the models are still locked away, they have refused peer review of them. The reason I'm more annoyed than usual is because the guy from SAGE literally said they don't model realistic scenarios that might be more positive because it doesn't inform decision making. That strikes me as trying to fix a policy outcome.
Scientists, in this pandemic, have a really, really important role and presenting all of the available evidence is extremely important. For a scientist to admit that, no, they won't do that is really shocking for me.
So you have seen the outputs, don't like what they say, and that is proof that the inputs were wrong and the scientists rigged the model.
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?
I assume that having posted here so clearly that you personally have seen both the assembled data and the actual model itself...?
The outputs yes, I had a read yesterday, the models are still locked away, they have refused peer review of them. The reason I'm more annoyed than usual is because the guy from SAGE literally said they don't model realistic scenarios that might be more positive because it doesn't inform decision making. That strikes me as trying to fix a policy outcome.
Scientists, in this pandemic, have a really, really important role and presenting all of the available evidence is extremely important. For a scientist to admit that, no, they won't do that is really shocking for me.
So you have seen the outputs, don't like what they say, and that is proof that the inputs were wrong and the scientists rigged the model.
No, because the SAGE scientist literally said that do that. I mean he said they don't include data points that give better outcomes because it doesn't inform decision making. Isn't that just a little bit alarming to you?
I am quite happy to put this whole Leon identity business to bed if he'd only stop bringing it up
You do seem to have this strange compulsion to restrict other’s freedom of action. What does it matter to you what @Leon calla himself on any given day?
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.
Which is why we're all entitled to be concerned about a permanent cycle of lockdowns, as follows:
1. Scary new variant 2. Models (which may or may not be any good) suggest scary new variant *might* destroy NHS 3. Panic panic panic panic panic, lockdown to be on the safe side
Then back to 1., and repeat until dead.
We're almost certainly going to end up suffering a whole raft of new restrictions, if not this week then immediately after Christmas, so all we can do is hope that Omicron turns out to be so transmissible that restrictions are revealed to be useless against it, and will therefore be dumped once and for all. This will go on forever otherwise.
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.
Ha. Max is the expert on models but cries off when he's asked for a prediction. You sound like an expert too. What's your prediction for hospitalisations next week?
Models don’t predict. They provide a range of likely outcomes for a given set of assumptions
All good thanks. Christmas drinks with neighbours this morning around their firepit*. A lovely sunny afternoon here in Dorset.
We seem to have survived attending Thursday's packed Bill Bailey show without contracting covid according to this morning's LFTs. We're now not seeing anyone else until Christmas Day, so hunkering down a bit.
Hope you get through your isolation ok 👍
(*As an aside, wtf is it with this 'firepit' obsession? It gave out no heat but we all came away kippered. Chimineas worked better but now seem to have gone out of fashion.)
@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.
But you know it's true.
You’re projecting again
LOL touché.
But seriously. I know that you need a febrile atmosphere to produce your best-knapped flints but not everyone is as robust as you are, as many on PB have told us. Be careful how you wield your undoubted gifts on here.
I think you are unfair to the “not now, but then” group.
Lockdowns had a role. To buy time until vaccines. Which they did. They made it possible to have a normal life with an endemic disease.
So I am proud to be in the “lockdown then but not now” camp
@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?
The rubicon was crossed 19 months ago. We slipped in to a biosurveillance state. The power that the government, the pharmaceutical companies, and its various scientific advisors have is irresistable. Its mandate is based on the promise of safety and the freedom from avoidable death; and it has a lot of public support. Undoing all this will be difficult. The only ground for optimism is that, at this critical time, the Conservative party are in power. I am not being too dramatic in saying that the entire fate of the country is in the hands of their backbenchers; and they have proven themselves to be wise to the situation.
If only they had the same level of concern about the terrible assaults on all our, age-old rights Patel and Johnson are planning in their Policing Bill, then.
I personally think it's very depressing how the restrictions or not have become siloed into a left-right issue. It's much more complex than that, and i personally think people should also show much more nuance in themselves than that, too. Earlier on I supported more restrictions, but at the moment I'm not so sure.
Some interesting data just out from New York, that I saw today - a massive number of infections, but bad outcomes actually down on this time last year, at the moment.
All good thanks. Christmas drinks with neighbours this morning around their firepit*. A lovely sunny afternoon here in Dorset.
We seem to have survived attending Thursday's packed Bill Bailey show without contracting covid according to this morning's LFTs. We're now not seeing anyone else until Christmas Day, so hunkering down a bit.
Hope you get through your isolation ok 👍
(*As an aside, wtf is it with this 'firepit' obsession? It gave out no heat but we all came away kippered. Chimineas worked better but now seem to have gone out of fashion.)
I have those people in my friendship group - and in my family
They chortle away about “extra Ocado deliveries of Prosecco”, and building a fucking pizza oven in the garden for their sneaky parties, then they say “lockdown isn’t all bad” as if they’ve really considered how it impacts the other 50%+ of the country
PB is also bad for this. It skews to the old, affluent and introverted. Lockdown is PERFECT for them. So they chortle away
I wonder this time if young people will simply rebel. I would if I was 21 or 24. If you’re that age you’re seeing some of the greatest, most important years of your life being trashed, one after another. Instead of giddy young life you get a jail sentence.
Fuck that shit
You raise a good point (albeit in more colourful language than I would use), that the visit majority of the people involved in the public discussion around the pandemic, have secure middle-class jobs and live in houses with gardens.
None of them have to go to an hourly-paid public-facing job, where meeting hundreds of people a day is a pre-requisite for the rent being paid at the end of the month. None of them run precarious small businesses, where remaining open appears to be even worse news for them than being ordered closed. None of them live an an overcrowded apartment with a small window for light and fresh air, next to a park that’s been closed.
I live alone, though am moderately well off and have a decent sized place. The last lockdown almost destroyed me, mentally and physically, and I'm still not recovered now. The isolation was unbearable. I broke furniture, I punched walls, I drank morning, noon and night. I cried, frequently. At one point I actually punched myself in the face until I passed out. Why, you might ask? Because I said to myself, if I didn't do this now just to get through to tomorrow, I would surely kill myself or go mad.
A zoom call does not replace human interaction. An hour's socially distanced exercise does not replace an evening with your mates in the pub. A phone call cannot replace a visit to a loved one in a care home. An online exercise class is no substitute for a PT session or a group class at your gym.
At some point, the loneliness of solitude becomes unbearable.
That was the reality of the last lockdown for me. Some people may love it. Good for them. Let them lock down if that's their choice. I've had my jabs and my booster. I want, no, I need to get on with my life.
Enough is enough. No more lockdowns. If covid is endemic, we're going to have to learn how to live with it. We can't (I certainly can't) keep going on like this.
Totally agree. I am sick of the mental health disaster that is lockdown being swept under the carpet and ignored.
Do any of the academics screaming for lockdown now and for weeks on end, live on their own?
Unlike so many on here, apparently, I am neither a professional scientist nor a professional modeller. But from my reading it seems that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the Omicron path, and splitting people into camps is unhelpful. It seems to me there are many known unknowns, but my reading of it at the moment is:
- Omicron is certainly highly transmissible and cases are going to be extremely high - We don't know how intrinsically severe it is yet, because we don't know whether evidence of mild disease can be attributed to vaccination/prior immunity, or whether the mildness is intrinsic to this variant - We really don't know whether our hospitals and ICUs are going to be inundated with patients with Omicron, because it's just too early to tell - We do know that hopitalisation itself indicates quite a severe disease, regardless of whether that progresses to ICU/ventilation/death. Hospital admissions in London are already rising, I believe.
So I'd argue that we're all just pissing in the wind at the moment. The best lack all conviction, the worst are full of passionate intensity, as somebody once said. On Omicron, I lack all conviction - at least for a few weeks.
"liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics."
"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.
No, because that's not what BDS means, at all. It's about pressure groups trying to bully organisations into not doing business with specific groups on the basis of their nationality, in a manner that is clearly racism masquerading as virtue. Which is why it's being banned.
I'm sure elements within the movement are distasteful in the way they operate. But, banning the freedom to choose is the manner of an authoritarian.
Shouldn't organisations be free to choose to work with states who also behave distastefully?
Yes, of course. The BDS movement specifically is being banned, because it singles out a specific regime in a manner that is clearly racist. No one is suggesting that any organisation should be forced to work with anyone from a particular country.
Journalists are fully qualified to critique absolutely anything at any time anywhere. In their humble opinion.
Although Nelson still buggered up the questioning. He didn't ask, 'who set your parameters and why did they choose them?'
It seems that what Nelson wants the modellers to do is to ignore what they are told to do by elected officials and instead do their own thing.
But I thought we didn't like unelected people making the rules of our country?
Surely if their job is to advise their job is to say what they think is likely, not to provide evidence for a political decision taken on other grounds?
I hope people will forgive my constant wishing people well
Wish as many people well as you like
Hope you are not feeling too bad at moment, and recover soon.
Thanks Rich, mostly recovered now, just waiting on my PCR result.
I think in these difficult times, some kindness and compassion can go a long way. To never feel alone, has been a big help for me and I hope others will feel the same way too.
No, of course not, but he is qualified to critique their methodology. Everyone is talking across points.
The model itself might be fine, we don't know because the government has never had it peer reviewed or let outsiders see what it's doing.
The issue people (including me) have is that last night a senior SAGE scientist said that data points which give more optimistic outcomes are purposefully excluded as they don't inform the decision making process.
He's basically saying that if they used actually known inputs on VE and hospitalisation the government wouldn't make any decisions so they don't include them. For example, the Imperial study on vaccine efficacy had three scenarios, the first two based on observed efficacy and dilution and a third based on observed efficacy plus an additional 6x dilution factor. The SAGE outputs last night used the third scenario and ignored the first two. You linked today to the study on Omicron being less good at replicating in lung tissue which in SA and Israel is linked to less intense use of healthcare facilities (shorter stays, no mechanical ventilation, less need for oxygen) but this scenario was simply thrown out (which is why Fraser Nelson asked the question in the first place).
So there are serious questions surrounding those SAGE predictions, those two changes on VE and less intense use of healthcare could be game changers, both were known before hand and both were ignored.
There may be reasons to ignore them, sometimes producing reasonable worst case scenarios require that to be done, but these weren't reasonable worst case scenarios, they were central forecasts.
It seems to me that they are putting their finger on the scale and saying everyone's going to die to try and get a lockdown because if they didn't put their finger on the scale the evidence for lockdown would be limited.
Didn't take long for it to slip into climate change denial conspiracy. And this is where it goes
Who is that?
Those replying to Fraser Nelson. They have extrapolated from The Sage omicron model is questionable to the Climate Change science models are all dodgy.
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
Cheers to Mr. Max and others here who have raised interesting and relevant points on the methodology, and the use (and weaknesses) of modelling as employed by SAGE.
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".
Didn't take long for it to slip into climate change denial conspiracy. And this is where it goes
Who is that?
Those replying to Fraser Nelson. They have extrapolated from The Sage omicron model is questionable to the Climate Change science models are all dodgy.
But who are they? It seems to me to just be a random nobody.
All good thanks. Christmas drinks with neighbours this morning around their firepit*. A lovely sunny afternoon here in Dorset.
We seem to have survived attending Thursday's packed Bill Bailey show without contracting covid according to this morning's LFTs. We're now not seeing anyone else until Christmas Day, so hunkering down a bit.
Hope you get through your isolation ok 👍
(*As an aside, wtf is it with this 'firepit' obsession? It gave out no heat but we all came away kippered. Chimineas worked better but now seem to have gone out of fashion.)
All good thanks. Christmas drinks with neighbours this morning around their firepit*. A lovely sunny afternoon here in Dorset.
We seem to have survived attending Thursday's packed Bill Bailey show without contracting covid according to this morning's LFTs. We're now not seeing anyone else until Christmas Day, so hunkering down a bit.
Hope you get through your isolation ok 👍
(*As an aside, wtf is it with this 'firepit' obsession? It gave out no heat but we all came away kippered. Chimineas worked better but now seem to have gone out of fashion.)
"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.
Doesn't work that way - the maths can be incredibly sensitive to input changes. (So I recall from my younger days studying, inter aliis, population dynamics and population genetics, and doing a course project on the latter, ironically on host-parasite genetics).
"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.
Doesn't work that way - the maths can be incredibly sensitive to input changes. (So I recall from my younger days studying, inter aliis, population dynamics and population genetics, and doing a course project on the latter, ironically on host-parasite genetics).
I don't know what any of that means - goodness me there are some smart people on this website
"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.
Doesn't work that way - the maths can be incredibly sensitive to input changes. (So I recall from my younger days studying, inter aliis, population dynamics and population genetics, and doing a course project on the latter, ironically on host-parasite genetics).
Yeah, it does. It doesn't take a genius to work out that using a higher estimate for the transmissibility (for example) will lead to a higher number of cases 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.
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.
Doesn't work that way - the maths can be incredibly sensitive to input changes. (So I recall from my younger days studying, inter aliis, population dynamics and population genetics, and doing a course project on the latter, ironically on host-parasite genetics).
There's always some basic inputs that will give known outcomes and changes, if you use better vaccine efficacy of 95% fewer people will die per day than if you use 85%.
- We do know that hospitalisation itself indicates quite a severe disease, regardless of whether that progresses to ICU/ventilation/death. Hospital admissions in London are already rising, I believe.
Time for the regular sermon about vaccines.
Medical teams at King’s [King's College Hospital in London] are now bracing themselves for a new influx of patients infected by the rapidly spreading Omicron variant. They are urging people to get their jabs.
...
Doctors and nurses say they are deeply concerned at the number of seriously ill patients being transferred to critical care beds who are still unvaccinated.
Michael Bartley, a critical care matron at King’s, estimated that “80 to 90%” in the hospital’s critical care beds were unvaccinated.
...
Dr Laura-Jane Smith, a respiratory consultant who works on a Covid ward at King’s, said on Friday: “I have seen four new patients admitted to the ward this morning aged between 40 and 90. They are all unvaccinated.
“I haven’t sent anyone to intensive care recently who has had any vaccines. Even if people who are vaccinated are getting sick, they’re not getting as sick. The ones we are seeing are going home much quicker and with less complications. It’s hard to hear people who are so sick saying: ‘I just wish I had got the vaccine’.”
Vaccinated patients are less likely to need an extended stay in hospital if admitted, and far less likely to require support from finite critical care resources. The problem, as we all appreciate, is that there are around five million unvaccinated adults in the UK, almost all of whom do not have a legitimate medical issue that prevents them from getting vaccinated.
You can argue 'til the cows come home about whether ministers are panicking unnecessarily when they introduce yet another lot of new rules, and about how legitimate the pandemic models are, but one fact is completely indisputable: in each cycle of new restrictions that we all have to suffer from this point onwards, it is the vaccine refusers who are largely to blame.
If 99% rather than 89% of all over 12s had accepted the vaccines, then we would be in a much better position to face Omicron and her numerous ugly sisters that are yet to come knocking at the door. But that's not where we are, and that's squarely the fault of the refusers.
I see very little evidence that the split on this site has really changed, the same people are pro lockdown as a year ago.
The split may not have changed but I'd be surprised if all of us haven't been on a bit of a journey as to our views. Unless you're the Piers Corbyn, or Steve Baker edges of our society then I think that must be true.
I genuinely don't really know my own opinion now - there's not so much science emerging it seems. My hunch is that Javid is weak and wobbly (just because that's my judgement of him beforehand).
- We do know that hospitalisation itself indicates quite a severe disease, regardless of whether that progresses to ICU/ventilation/death. Hospital admissions in London are already rising, I believe.
Time for the regular sermon about vaccines.
Medical teams at King’s [King's College Hospital in London] are now bracing themselves for a new influx of patients infected by the rapidly spreading Omicron variant. They are urging people to get their jabs.
...
Doctors and nurses say they are deeply concerned at the number of seriously ill patients being transferred to critical care beds who are still unvaccinated.
Michael Bartley, a critical care matron at King’s, estimated that “80 to 90%” in the hospital’s critical care beds were unvaccinated.
...
Dr Laura-Jane Smith, a respiratory consultant who works on a Covid ward at King’s, said on Friday: “I have seen four new patients admitted to the ward this morning aged between 40 and 90. They are all unvaccinated.
“I haven’t sent anyone to intensive care recently who has had any vaccines. Even if people who are vaccinated are getting sick, they’re not getting as sick. The ones we are seeing are going home much quicker and with less complications. It’s hard to hear people who are so sick saying: ‘I just wish I had got the vaccine’.”
Vaccinated patients are less likely to need an extended stay in hospital if admitted, and far less likely to require support from finite critical care resources. The problem, as we all appreciate, is that there are around five million unvaccinated adults in the UK, almost all of whom do not have a legitimate medical issue that prevents them from getting vaccinated.
You can argue 'til the cows come home about whether ministers are panicking unnecessarily when they introduce more restriction, and about how legitimate the pandemic models are, but one fact is completely indisputable: in each cycle of new restrictions that we all have to suffer from this point onwards, it is the vaccine refusers who are largely to blame.
If 99% rather than 89% of all over 12s had accepted the vaccines, then we would be in a much better position to face Omicron and her numerous ugly sisters that are yet to come knocking at the door. But that's not where we are, and that's squarely the fault of the refusers.
I really like the tax idea. Make them pay for their stupidity.
"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.
Doesn't work that way - the maths can be incredibly sensitive to input changes. (So I recall from my younger days studying, inter aliis, population dynamics and population genetics, and doing a course project on the latter, ironically on host-parasite genetics).
I don't know what any of that means - goodness me there are some smart people on this website
Just that MaxPB was claiming the scientists could tell what the results would be before they put the data in. Which doesn't feel right to me at all.
Also - some PBers have been complaining that the scientists were producing models with huge error ranges. Well, that in itself strongly suggests that the scientists aren't picking the results. If they wanted lockdown, they'd ...
(It's a different matter to recommend action based on those results - but on the precautionary principle, given the time delays involved, it makes sense to assume things will be at the shittier end of the spectrum till more data come in that can be used to refine the models.)
"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.
Doesn't work that way - the maths can be incredibly sensitive to input changes. (So I recall from my younger days studying, inter aliis, population dynamics and population genetics, and doing a course project on the latter, ironically on host-parasite genetics).
I don't know what any of that means - goodness me there are some smart people on this website
Just that MaxPB was claiming the scientists could tell what the results would be before they put the data in. Which doesn't feel right to me at all.
Also - some PBers have been complaining that the scientists were producing models with huge error ranges. Well, that in itself strongly suggests that the scientists aren't picking the results. If they wanted lockdown, they'd ...
(It's a different matter to recommend action based on those results - but on the precautionary principle, given the time delays involved, it makes sense to assume things will be at the shittier end of the spectrum till more data come in that can be used to refine the models.)
So you think the scientist would have no idea what would happen to the output of the model if they used a higher rate of transmissibility, or lower vaccine effectiveness?
I see very little evidence that the split on this site has really changed, the same people are pro lockdown as a year ago.
I'm not I'm afraid. There really was no alternative last year. It was the right, indeed the only option. Now. Not sure of that at all. Can a lockdown restrict Omicron given its transmissibility? Not convinced. Will a lockdown be followed by enough folk to be effective even if it is containable? Not convinced. Will there be so many hospitalised that the NHS is overwhelmed? Not convinced.
On all these points I am convincable. I have no ideological axe to grind here. But I don't think the case has been made as of yet.
Comments
The prospect of another grim winter lockdown is enough to spook anyone. It is nothing to be ashamed of
I’m getting the exact same mood from many friends on WhatsApp. “Please God not again”
But seriously. I know that you need a febrile atmosphere to produce your best-knapped flints but not everyone is as robust as you are, as many on PB have told us. Be careful how you wield your undoubted gifts on here.
If you see somebody who gets every major judgement call wrong, and refuses to acknowledge it, and keeps churning out results that as a result are worthless, it seems reasonable to wonder if there is another motive.
And unfortunately, the answer is often 'yes.' For example, Pagel's models are designed to get her media attention, in which they have been brilliantly successful. These models are designed to outline the worst case scenario - but by failing to model other possible outcomes the government is being negligent.
Please stay well and be careful.
It's a very tricky time. Omicron could yet be very dangerous or it could be a bit meh. I sincerely hope it's the latter but I sympathise with HMG on this. They are between a rock and a hard place.
I could not live with myself knowing he had passed it to a relative.
As for the actual lockdown well I am very lucky and like many if not most on PB I have a charming world to retreat into. But a bit like champagne socialists wanting to help the poor, I am very very concerned both about the effects of lockdown on others and the liberty issues around lockdown.
Meantime I have some actual WORK to do, and lots of it. And then my tax returns. Happy Days indeed.
Later
https://twitter.com/timspector/status/1472560930835902464?s=20
Not going to take long to get through the whipper-snappers.
https://nation.cymru/news/bridgend-conservative-mp-arrested-on-suspicion-of-driving-whilst-unfit-following-car-crash/
Over the drink driving limit, I presume?
My tissue;
Lab 1/8
Con 6/1
Ld 10/1
PC 20/1
What you might want to bear in mind though - and Max can correct me if I am wrong - is that the most scepticism re the modelling is coming from those of us who have numerous years’ direct experience of modelling and know its pitfalls and risks. I’ve said this before but you take a Unilever and get 20 different forecasts from 20 different analysts and all with access to the same information because the way they view that data reflect those individuals’ views.
The Government’s problem is not scientists deliberately distorting information but that they are not getting a diverse enough range of views . Instead they are getting information from a group who have a certain view that hasn’t changed during the pandemic - remember the doomsday scenarios from the early days - and , more importantly, do not seem inclined to learn from their earlier mistakes and tweak their modelling. That is a huge problem.
There's also a personal angle to this. Imagine being in a position where your conclusions could save - or cost - the lives of tens of thousands. The stress must be amazing. The data may be sterile, but the conclusions you make from it have very real consequences.
It's easy for us on here to chew the cud about what should be done. It's much more real for Witty et al.
It's hard sometimes, as he is such a wind-up merchant*, but best to let it go if you can.
(*He's also at times the most entertaining PB poster by a mile, it should be said.)
Zoe App have consistently been in the canary in the coalmine....that is why I pointed out I thought it was strange / interesting they hadn't picked up the wave in their usual manner. It wasn't to doubt there was a wave, but it was I think the first time they hadn't picked it up ahead of time.
Nobody doubts the really good work they do. My guess would be because it is revolves mainly around symptoms tracking (although they do their own testing) it probably been missing a lot more early cases.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59717571
The odds are good that the "lived experience" of those in government advocating for a second lockdown has not been that bad. The decision makers had big gardens, families, perhaps even a few secret drinkies with their colleagues. They are therefore biased towards lockdown on the basis of their own lived experience of it not being so bad.
Whereas those of us who have had a terrible experience of lockdown are more likely to say, bugger the models even if ten thousand people are dying a day, I'd rather drive down to the beach and walk out to sea with rocks in my pockets than suffer another lockdown. Even though that may not be the best outcome from a society-wide perspective.
The question we have to ask ourselves is, are the scientists really using modelling only, or does their lived experience contribute towards unconscious bias - i.e. they see worst case scenarios, want to save lives, think back to their own experience of lockdown as not being so bad, then plump for the models they think "save the most lives" because their own experience of lockdown is that it isn't so bad.
Shouldn't organisations be free to choose to work with states who also behave distastefully?
Scientists, in this pandemic, have a really, really important role and presenting all of the available evidence is extremely important. For a scientist to admit that, no, they won't do that is really shocking for me.
There's also the dimension of: if you get it wrong one way people say you cost the country a lot of money and mental health; if you get it wrong the other way a lot of people die.
Tough for him, and for HMG tbf.
(On a more substantial point, he really is a grade A twat.)
I think though that SAGE should open up their models to scrutiny by outsiders to test and question their assumptions. I had that in my old job and it meant I was a much better analyst (and modeller) for it.
Previous waves they were getting the red flashing warning signs 2 weeks before the actual PCR case numbers, because lots of people were reports some symptoms.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-59712424
1. Scary new variant
2. Models (which may or may not be any good) suggest scary new variant *might* destroy NHS
3. Panic panic panic panic panic, lockdown to be on the safe side
Then back to 1., and repeat until dead.
We're almost certainly going to end up suffering a whole raft of new restrictions, if not this week then immediately after Christmas, so all we can do is hope that Omicron turns out to be so transmissible that restrictions are revealed to be useless against it, and will therefore be dumped once and for all. This will go on forever otherwise.
In their humble opinion.
Didn't take long for it to slip into climate change denial conspiracy. And this is where it goes
We seem to have survived attending Thursday's packed Bill Bailey show without contracting covid according to this morning's LFTs. We're now not seeing anyone else until Christmas Day, so hunkering down a bit.
Hope you get through your isolation ok 👍
(*As an aside, wtf is it with this 'firepit' obsession? It gave out no heat but we all came away kippered. Chimineas worked better but now seem to have gone out of fashion.)
But I thought we didn't like unelected people making the rules of our country?
Lockdowns had a role. To buy time until vaccines. Which they did. They made it possible to have a normal life with an endemic disease.
So I am proud to be in the “lockdown then but not now” camp
I personally think it's very depressing how the restrictions or not have become siloed into a left-right issue. It's much more complex than that, and i personally think people should also show much more nuance in themselves than that, too. Earlier on I supported more restrictions, but at the moment I'm not so sure.
Some interesting data just out from New York, that I saw today - a massive number of infections, but bad outcomes actually down on this time last year, at the moment.
And totally agree about the firepit.
P.S. love the dog
Hope you are not feeling too bad at moment, and recover soon.
Good luck to all those on the front line.
It seems to me there are many known unknowns, but my reading of it at the moment is:
- Omicron is certainly highly transmissible and cases are going to be extremely high
- We don't know how intrinsically severe it is yet, because we don't know whether evidence of mild disease can be attributed to vaccination/prior immunity, or whether the mildness is intrinsic to this variant
- We really don't know whether our hospitals and ICUs are going to be inundated with patients with Omicron, because it's just too early to tell
- We do know that hopitalisation itself indicates quite a severe disease, regardless of whether that progresses to ICU/ventilation/death. Hospital admissions in London are already rising, I believe.
So I'd argue that we're all just pissing in the wind at the moment. The best lack all conviction, the worst are full of passionate intensity, as somebody once said. On Omicron, I lack all conviction - at least for a few weeks.
I think in these difficult times, some kindness and compassion can go a long way. To never feel alone, has been a big help for me and I hope others will feel the same way too.
The model itself might be fine, we don't know because the government has never had it peer reviewed or let outsiders see what it's doing.
The issue people (including me) have is that last night a senior SAGE scientist said that data points which give more optimistic outcomes are purposefully excluded as they don't inform the decision making process.
He's basically saying that if they used actually known inputs on VE and hospitalisation the government wouldn't make any decisions so they don't include them. For example, the Imperial study on vaccine efficacy had three scenarios, the first two based on observed efficacy and dilution and a third based on observed efficacy plus an additional 6x dilution factor. The SAGE outputs last night used the third scenario and ignored the first two. You linked today to the study on Omicron being less good at replicating in lung tissue which in SA and Israel is linked to less intense use of healthcare facilities (shorter stays, no mechanical ventilation, less need for oxygen) but this scenario was simply thrown out (which is why Fraser Nelson asked the question in the first place).
So there are serious questions surrounding those SAGE predictions, those two changes on VE and less intense use of healthcare could be game changers, both were known before hand and both were ignored.
There may be reasons to ignore them, sometimes producing reasonable worst case scenarios require that to be done, but these weren't reasonable worst case scenarios, they were central forecasts.
It seems to me that they are putting their finger on the scale and saying everyone's going to die to try and get a lockdown because if they didn't put their finger on the scale the evidence for lockdown would be limited.
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/19/london-hospital-staff-speak-out-were-not-here-to-judge-but-please-get-your-covid-vaccines
I'll be back this evening for another round of guessing how long before HMG Titanic slips below the waves, as Cap'n Johnson jumps ship.
Have a nice Sunday afternoon all!
Medical teams at King’s [King's College Hospital in London] are now bracing themselves for a new influx of patients infected by the rapidly spreading Omicron variant. They are urging people to get their jabs.
...
Doctors and nurses say they are deeply concerned at the number of seriously ill patients being transferred to critical care beds who are still unvaccinated.
Michael Bartley, a critical care matron at King’s, estimated that “80 to 90%” in the hospital’s critical care beds were unvaccinated.
...
Dr Laura-Jane Smith, a respiratory consultant who works on a Covid ward at King’s, said on Friday: “I have seen four new patients admitted to the ward this morning aged between 40 and 90. They are all unvaccinated.
“I haven’t sent anyone to intensive care recently who has had any vaccines. Even if people who are vaccinated are getting sick, they’re not getting as sick. The ones we are seeing are going home much quicker and with less complications. It’s hard to hear people who are so sick saying: ‘I just wish I had got the vaccine’.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/19/london-hospital-staff-speak-out-were-not-here-to-judge-but-please-get-your-covid-vaccines
Vaccinated patients are less likely to need an extended stay in hospital if admitted, and far less likely to require support from finite critical care resources. The problem, as we all appreciate, is that there are around five million unvaccinated adults in the UK, almost all of whom do not have a legitimate medical issue that prevents them from getting vaccinated.
You can argue 'til the cows come home about whether ministers are panicking unnecessarily when they introduce yet another lot of new rules, and about how legitimate the pandemic models are, but one fact is completely indisputable: in each cycle of new restrictions that we all have to suffer from this point onwards, it is the vaccine refusers who are largely to blame.
If 99% rather than 89% of all over 12s had accepted the vaccines, then we would be in a much better position to face Omicron and her numerous ugly sisters that are yet to come knocking at the door. But that's not where we are, and that's squarely the fault of the refusers.
I genuinely don't really know my own opinion now - there's not so much science emerging it seems. My hunch is that Javid is weak and wobbly (just because that's my judgement of him beforehand).
Also - some PBers have been complaining that the scientists were producing models with huge error ranges. Well, that in itself strongly suggests that the scientists aren't picking the results. If they wanted lockdown, they'd ...
(It's a different matter to recommend action based on those results - but on the precautionary principle, given the time delays involved, it makes sense to assume things will be at the shittier end of the spectrum till more data come in that can be used to refine the models.)
There really was no alternative last year. It was the right, indeed the only option.
Now. Not sure of that at all.
Can a lockdown restrict Omicron given its transmissibility? Not convinced.
Will a lockdown be followed by enough folk to be effective even if it is containable? Not convinced.
Will there be so many hospitalised that the NHS is overwhelmed? Not convinced.
On all these points I am convincable. I have no ideological axe to grind here.
But I don't think the case has been made as of yet.