This is connected to Javid's 1 million vaccinations tweet - I didn't notice that it has the Tory party logo on the tweet. Tom Peck @tompeck Honestly think putting their party logo on the national vaccination effort and its thousands of volunteers is the most shameless thing this lot have ever done.
That’s truly appalling. The blue is not coincidental either. And even if it only puts off a handful of potential volunteers, it’s really counterproductive.
This is connected to Javid's 1 million vaccinations tweet - I didn't notice that it has the Tory party logo on the tweet. Tom Peck @tompeck Honestly think putting their party logo on the national vaccination effort and its thousands of volunteers is the most shameless thing this lot have ever done.
That is a fucking disgrace. Volunteer to help the vaccination effort, and get co-opted into Tory party propaganda. These weasels are a disgusting stain on this country who defile everything they touch.
So covid goes the way of Brexit - decisions on how to handle it are now being made entirely with just three constituencies in mind: 1. The Tory supporting press 2. Tory backbenchers 3. Tory party members The interests of the country are not of the remotest relevance.
Number 2 are the elected representatives we sent to Parliament. They represent the interests of the country.
This is connected to Javid's 1 million vaccinations tweet - I didn't notice that it has the Tory party logo on the tweet. Tom Peck @tompeck Honestly think putting their party logo on the national vaccination effort and its thousands of volunteers is the most shameless thing this lot have ever done.
That is a fucking disgrace. Volunteer to help the vaccination effort, and get co-opted into Tory party propaganda. These weasels are a disgusting stain on this country who defile everything they touch.
Also British nationalist. How will that go down in NI?
So covid goes the way of Brexit - decisions on how to handle it are now being made entirely with just three constituencies in mind: 1. The Tory supporting press 2. Tory backbenchers 3. Tory party members The interests of the country are not of the remotest relevance.
Number 2 are the elected representatives we sent to Parliament. They represent the interests of the country.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
The decision makers don't need to know what the relative chance of it hitting or missing is?
No. Not when the data is not good enough.
Low confidence in probability prediction and low confidence in impact prediction OR probability approaching 0 and impact approaching infinity BOTH mean that any numbers are meaningless and we have to adopt qualitative as opposed to quantitative approaches to risk management.
So it's okay to use one set of data that isn't good enough, but not another? That's the central issue, that the assumptions being used by the models are on the pessimistic side.
Yes, because one set of data contains no useful information even if the data turn out to be correct; whereas the other set does contain useful information even if the data turn out to be incorrect.
That's completely ridiculous and why governments make frankly stupid decisions.
We normally agree on much, Max. But this is not ridiculous. This is decision-making in conditions of ignorance (i.e. low confidence in predictions of probability and impact). If you want some scientific articles on this, look up Andy Stirling's work, or anything on HROs (Sutcliffe and Wieck, La Porte, and many more)
I understand I think. First they look at all the risk that needs mitigating, and consequences of the do nothing option, and then factor in what they don’t know shouldn’t prevent acting and mitigating the risk - low confidence or don’t know cannot equate to do nothing if managing risk properly?
Sobering to remember that Nadine Dorries is currently involved in a cabinet discussion about how to respond to the threat posed by the omicron covid strain.
So covid goes the way of Brexit - decisions on how to handle it are now being made entirely with just three constituencies in mind: 1. The Tory supporting press 2. Tory backbenchers 3. Tory party members The interests of the country are not of the remotest relevance.
Number 2 are the elected representatives we sent to Parliament. They represent the interests of the country.
So covid goes the way of Brexit - decisions on how to handle it are now being made entirely with just three constituencies in mind: 1. The Tory supporting press 2. Tory backbenchers 3. Tory party members The interests of the country are not of the remotest relevance.
Add 4. Tory voters, it was when half of them went to the Brexit Party after May failed to deliver Brexit in March 2019 that she sealed her fate (if Boris imposes another lockdown and leaks large numbers of Tory voters to RefUK his fate would also be sealed). Though of course in 2019 you also had to add 5. The DUP who were needed to get any Brexit deal through Parliament until Boris won his majority that December
Only up 8000 since Friday. Has the exponential increase stopped?
I've always been suspicious that the doubling time would remain constant. Surely as more are infected there's fewer left to infect.
Cases have been roughly level since 16th December - that is five days in a row. They were supposed to be growing with a doubling time of two days or less. Cases should therefore now be over 360,000 reported cases per day - two doublings. Today's actual figure is 91,743. This is simply incompatible with the advice of SAGE's very eminent scientists that cases are exploding out of control. Could these eminent scientists have made incorrect assumptions? Science history shows that this has happened many times in the past.
Why should the evidence of the epidemic in South Africa be discounted, as SAGE have done? Until SAGE have fully explained and justified their case, it should not be accepted.
I hope, I hope, you are not trying to fit Reporting Date data to reality there.
How long have we been doing this? When cases are rising they rise in weekly steps starting on Wednesday when you look at the By Reporting Date figures
This week (starting Wednesday) so far is an average of 87513 Last week the average was 53943 The week before: 48127 The week before: 42936
And each of those weeks were flat often with the Tuesday figure lower than the preceding Wednesday figure.
Yes, but... when we are in a rapidly changing environment like this, we've got to look shorter than WoW. It's harder data to pick trends out from. And - in line with previous weeks - I would certainly expect Wednesday's figures to be bigger than today's. But at some point the exponentiation will cease, and if we only look at WoW figures we won't notice it until six or seven days too late. Also should be emphasised that we are not in one wave: we are in the sum of a lot of little waves. Which means the shape of the wave will be unpredictable. It could be that London has peaked already but that the north west and west midlands are about to go through what London did last week.
Only up 8000 since Friday. Has the exponential increase stopped?
I've always been suspicious that the doubling time would remain constant. Surely as more are infected there's fewer left to infect.
Cases have been roughly level since 16th December - that is five days in a row. They were supposed to be growing with a doubling time of two days or less. Cases should therefore now be over 360,000 reported cases per day - two doublings. Today's actual figure is 91,743. This is simply incompatible with the advice of SAGE's very eminent scientists that cases are exploding out of control. Could these eminent scientists have made incorrect assumptions? Science history shows that this has happened many times in the past.
Why should the evidence of the epidemic in South Africa be discounted, as SAGE have done? Until SAGE have fully explained and justified their case, it should not be accepted.
Only up 8000 since Friday. Has the exponential increase stopped?
I've always been suspicious that the doubling time would remain constant. Surely as more are infected there's fewer left to infect.
Cases have been roughly level since 16th December - that is five days in a row. They were supposed to be growing with a doubling time of two days or less. Cases should therefore now be over 360,000 reported cases per day - two doublings. Today's actual figure is 91,743. This is simply incompatible with the advice of SAGE's very eminent scientists that cases are exploding out of control. Could these eminent scientists have made incorrect assumptions? Science history shows that this has happened many times in the past.
Why should the evidence of the epidemic in South Africa be discounted, as SAGE have done? Until SAGE have fully explained and justified their case, it should not be accepted.
I hope, I hope, you are not trying to fit Reporting Date data to reality there.
How long have we been doing this? When cases are rising they rise in weekly steps starting on Wednesday when you look at the By Reporting Date figures
This week (starting Wednesday) so far is an average of 87513 Last week the average was 53943 The week before: 48127 The week before: 42936
And each of those weeks were flat often with the Tuesday figure lower than the preceding Wednesday figure.
Also, these numbers are a combination of delta and omicron. If you look at the omicron only the doubling rate is there.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
The decision makers don't need to know what the relative chance of it hitting or missing is?
No. Not when the data is not good enough.
Low confidence in probability prediction and low confidence in impact prediction OR probability approaching 0 and impact approaching infinity BOTH mean that any numbers are meaningless and we have to adopt qualitative as opposed to quantitative approaches to risk management.
So it's okay to use one set of data that isn't good enough, but not another? That's the central issue, that the assumptions being used by the models are on the pessimistic side.
Yes, because one set of data contains no useful information even if the data turn out to be correct; whereas the other set does contain useful information even if the data turn out to be incorrect.
That's completely ridiculous and why governments make frankly stupid decisions.
We normally agree on much, Max. But this is not ridiculous. This is decision-making in conditions of ignorance (i.e. low confidence in predictions of probability and impact). If you want some scientific articles on this, look up Andy Stirling's work, or anything on HROs (Sutcliffe and Wieck, La Porte, and many more)
But the point of assuming the worst in a decision making process is if you have unknowns, vaccine efficacy is a known and Omicron case severity is also a known. I can understand using worst case data inputs where we don't know because that gets us the "what's the worst that can happen" scenario which we may need to cover. Using unknown modelled inputs rather than known observed inputs is not going to inform any decisions. You just end up with what we have now where people become distrustful of both the models and the motivations of those either asking for the scenarios or those doing the modelling.
What the government modellers are saying is that Omicron is an unknown unknown, but it isn't and that's why there's so much push back on their doom scenarios.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
Because they were not talking about probability; just what may happen in the scenarios where the government need to perform an action. Probability of each scenario is a different matter, and one that is very vague atm.
COVID-19 hospital admissions in London are still increasing rapidly with 7-day average up 38% week-on-week. North West is up 14% while other English regions saw a fall in admissions.
For England overall, admissions are up 4%, but London gives an indication of what to expect.
London has a far lower percentage of its population vaccinated or having had their boosters than the rest of the UK and a far higher number of antivaxxers.
So if we need a lockdown or mandatory across the board vaxports anywhere it should be in London until more of them get their boosters
Sobering to remember that Nadine Dorries is currently involved in a cabinet discussion about how to respond to the threat posed by the omicron covid strain.
No doubt regaling her colleagues with the plot to her latest romance novel, “Love in a Time of Covid”.
Meanwhile, Truss is posting selfies onto Instagram, Rishi is doing a sudoku, and Boris is masturbating listlessly into a large bucket supplied for that use by the Cab Sec.
This is connected to Javid's 1 million vaccinations tweet - I didn't notice that it has the Tory party logo on the tweet. Tom Peck @tompeck Honestly think putting their party logo on the national vaccination effort and its thousands of volunteers is the most shameless thing this lot have ever done.
It's actually disgraceful. How low the Tory party has sunk.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
The decision makers don't need to know what the relative chance of it hitting or missing is?
No. Not when the data is not good enough.
Low confidence in probability prediction and low confidence in impact prediction OR probability approaching 0 and impact approaching infinity BOTH mean that any numbers are meaningless and we have to adopt qualitative as opposed to quantitative approaches to risk management.
So it's okay to use one set of data that isn't good enough, but not another? That's the central issue, that the assumptions being used by the models are on the pessimistic side.
Yes, because one set of data contains no useful information even if the data turn out to be correct; whereas the other set does contain useful information even if the data turn out to be incorrect.
That's completely ridiculous and why governments make frankly stupid decisions.
We normally agree on much, Max. But this is not ridiculous. This is decision-making in conditions of ignorance (i.e. low confidence in predictions of probability and impact). If you want some scientific articles on this, look up Andy Stirling's work, or anything on HROs (Sutcliffe and Wieck, La Porte, and many more)
The other key point in this kind of situation is that delaying a decision is in effect choosing the status quo, along with the outcomes associated with it. This may not be the best choice and even incomplete information might indicate a better option.
Only up 8000 since Friday. Has the exponential increase stopped?
I've always been suspicious that the doubling time would remain constant. Surely as more are infected there's fewer left to infect.
Cases have been roughly level since 16th December - that is five days in a row. They were supposed to be growing with a doubling time of two days or less. Cases should therefore now be over 360,000 reported cases per day - two doublings. Today's actual figure is 91,743. This is simply incompatible with the advice of SAGE's very eminent scientists that cases are exploding out of control. Could these eminent scientists have made incorrect assumptions? Science history shows that this has happened many times in the past.
Why should the evidence of the epidemic in South Africa be discounted, as SAGE have done? Until SAGE have fully explained and justified their case, it should not be accepted.
Sobering to remember that Nadine Dorries is currently involved in a cabinet discussion about how to respond to the threat posed by the omicron covid strain.
Sobering to remember that Nadine Dorries is currently involved in a cabinet discussion about how to respond to the threat posed by the omicron covid strain.
Even more disturbing to think as a former nurse she's probably the most knowledgeable person at the table.
Only up 8000 since Friday. Has the exponential increase stopped?
I've always been suspicious that the doubling time would remain constant. Surely as more are infected there's fewer left to infect.
Cases have been roughly level since 16th December - that is five days in a row. They were supposed to be growing with a doubling time of two days or less. Cases should therefore now be over 360,000 reported cases per day - two doublings. Today's actual figure is 91,743. This is simply incompatible with the advice of SAGE's very eminent scientists that cases are exploding out of control. Could these eminent scientists have made incorrect assumptions? Science history shows that this has happened many times in the past.
Why should the evidence of the epidemic in South Africa be discounted, as SAGE have done? Until SAGE have fully explained and justified their case, it should not be accepted.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
The decision makers don't need to know what the relative chance of it hitting or missing is?
No. Not when the data is not good enough.
Low confidence in probability prediction and low confidence in impact prediction OR probability approaching 0 and impact approaching infinity BOTH mean that any numbers are meaningless and we have to adopt qualitative as opposed to quantitative approaches to risk management.
So it's okay to use one set of data that isn't good enough, but not another? That's the central issue, that the assumptions being used by the models are on the pessimistic side.
Yes, because one set of data contains no useful information even if the data turn out to be correct; whereas the other set does contain useful information even if the data turn out to be incorrect.
That's completely ridiculous and why governments make frankly stupid decisions.
We normally agree on much, Max. But this is not ridiculous. This is decision-making in conditions of ignorance (i.e. low confidence in predictions of probability and impact). If you want some scientific articles on this, look up Andy Stirling's work, or anything on HROs (Sutcliffe and Wieck, La Porte, and many more)
I understand I think. First they look at all the risk that needs mitigating, and consequences of the do nothing option, and then factor in what they don’t know shouldn’t prevent acting and mitigating the risk - low confidence or don’t know cannot equate to do nothing if managing risk properly?
That is it - but just for your Never Event risks - not all risks.
I may be in danger of massive levels of egg on face in only a week or so, but to me some of the media, SAGE and government hyperactivity over Omicron feels very similar to the warnings about Iraqi WBD before the war. The same conflicting feelings.
On the one hand we had apparent evidence coming out of Iraq as Hans Blix and his team of inspectors failed to turn up any hard and fast evidence for a WMD programme. Every few days that went by, every report back to the UN, the evidence that there was anything at all being hidden seemed to become weaker. We could all see it with our own eyes.
On the other hand, the consensus of public opinion remained convinced there was a big WMD stockpile. It was deductive thinking: Saddam has WMD, therefore he must be hiding them very effectively. Meanwhile we heard, via the UK media, of all sorts of frightening things that intelligence had access too but which were too scary to share with the British public.
Then even in the first weeks after the invasion the search, ever more forelorn, kept going.
I was someone who opposed the invasion from the start but I was nonetheless convinced Saddam had WMD. Who was I to doubt the intelligence services? It was only weeks afterwards that the remarkable truth came out: that Saddam had been bluffing all along.
It feels like that now. Not that there is some nefarious conspiracy to cover up some innate truth about mildness, but that we are so conditioned to Covid variants being generally bad news that even with the South African equivalents of Hans Blix turning up repeated evidence, nobody is in the mood to listen. The narrative is set.
Only up 8000 since Friday. Has the exponential increase stopped?
I've always been suspicious that the doubling time would remain constant. Surely as more are infected there's fewer left to infect.
Cases have been roughly level since 16th December - that is five days in a row. They were supposed to be growing with a doubling time of two days or less. Cases should therefore now be over 360,000 reported cases per day - two doublings. Today's actual figure is 91,743. This is simply incompatible with the advice of SAGE's very eminent scientists that cases are exploding out of control. Could these eminent scientists have made incorrect assumptions? Science history shows that this has happened many times in the past.
Why should the evidence of the epidemic in South Africa be discounted, as SAGE have done? Until SAGE have fully explained and justified their case, it should not be accepted.
This is connected to Javid's 1 million vaccinations tweet - I didn't notice that it has the Tory party logo on the tweet. Tom Peck @tompeck Honestly think putting their party logo on the national vaccination effort and its thousands of volunteers is the most shameless thing this lot have ever done.
It's actually disgraceful. How low the Tory party has sunk.
Maybe they can't tell the difference between the Party and the State anymore.
Time to kick these buggers out and put a new lot in.
So covid goes the way of Brexit - decisions on how to handle it are now being made entirely with just three constituencies in mind: 1. The Tory supporting press 2. Tory backbenchers 3. Tory party members The interests of the country are not of the remotest relevance.
To paraphrase @HYUFD god help me and as regards a specific point I made against him a short while ago, any vote will or will not be passed in parliament. Any decision that cabinet makes will therefore be subject to democratic oversight. If the HoC passes it it passes the democratic oversight standard, if not, not.
The Tory supporting press can want or not want what they want. It is the Cons and Lab (and other) MPs that make the point. Of course he wants Cons backbenchers to support him but each of those Cons backbenchers has been voted in by their constituencies.
I absolutely don't think that governments should rule for their own supporters but I fail to see how locking down or not locking down is a Lab/Con thing. Is Piers Corbyn now the Uxbridge Cons PPC?
Sobering to remember that Nadine Dorries is currently involved in a cabinet discussion about how to respond to the threat posed by the omicron covid strain.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
The decision makers don't need to know what the relative chance of it hitting or missing is?
No. Not when the data is not good enough.
Low confidence in probability prediction and low confidence in impact prediction OR probability approaching 0 and impact approaching infinity BOTH mean that any numbers are meaningless and we have to adopt qualitative as opposed to quantitative approaches to risk management.
So it's okay to use one set of data that isn't good enough, but not another? That's the central issue, that the assumptions being used by the models are on the pessimistic side.
Yes, because one set of data contains no useful information even if the data turn out to be correct; whereas the other set does contain useful information even if the data turn out to be incorrect.
That's completely ridiculous and why governments make frankly stupid decisions.
We normally agree on much, Max. But this is not ridiculous. This is decision-making in conditions of ignorance (i.e. low confidence in predictions of probability and impact). If you want some scientific articles on this, look up Andy Stirling's work, or anything on HROs (Sutcliffe and Wieck, La Porte, and many more)
I understand I think. First they look at all the risk that needs mitigating, and consequences of the do nothing option, and then factor in what they don’t know shouldn’t prevent acting and mitigating the risk - low confidence or don’t know cannot equate to do nothing if managing risk properly?
That is it - but just for your Never Event risks - not all risks.
But Omicron isn't an asteroid hurtling towards us from space threatening to wipe out all mankind. That's where you're making the mistake and whoever in the government is treating it like one.
I thought the Scottish bloke (chief scientist? medic?) on WatO spoke a lot of sense.
He said that any legal mandate for further restrictions had to be weighed against other society harms and benefits eg the economy - businesses and those working for them - mental health, education, etc, etc.
Scotland only has advice which I think is the right way ahead here. But then I would say that as an ex-Cons Boris-as-PM loather, right?
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
The decision makers don't need to know what the relative chance of it hitting or missing is?
No. Not when the data is not good enough.
Low confidence in probability prediction and low confidence in impact prediction OR probability approaching 0 and impact approaching infinity BOTH mean that any numbers are meaningless and we have to adopt qualitative as opposed to quantitative approaches to risk management.
So it's okay to use one set of data that isn't good enough, but not another? That's the central issue, that the assumptions being used by the models are on the pessimistic side.
Yes, because one set of data contains no useful information even if the data turn out to be correct; whereas the other set does contain useful information even if the data turn out to be incorrect.
That's completely ridiculous and why governments make frankly stupid decisions.
We normally agree on much, Max. But this is not ridiculous. This is decision-making in conditions of ignorance (i.e. low confidence in predictions of probability and impact). If you want some scientific articles on this, look up Andy Stirling's work, or anything on HROs (Sutcliffe and Wieck, La Porte, and many more)
I understand I think. First they look at all the risk that needs mitigating, and consequences of the do nothing option, and then factor in what they don’t know shouldn’t prevent acting and mitigating the risk - low confidence or don’t know cannot equate to do nothing if managing risk properly?
That is it - but just for your Never Event risks - not all risks.
The Government’s net competency rating is -30% in this week’s poll, representing a new lowest net competency rating we have recorded since we began tracking this question in August 2020. Altogether, 19% find the Government competent (down 1%), 49% find the Government incompetent (no change), and 27% find the Government neither competent nor incompetent (up 3%).
So covid goes the way of Brexit - decisions on how to handle it are now being made entirely with just three constituencies in mind: 1. The Tory supporting press 2. Tory backbenchers 3. Tory party members The interests of the country are not of the remotest relevance.
Number 2 are the elected representatives we sent to Parliament. They represent the interests of the country.
No, they represent their constituents.
What's the difference?
Their constituents are the interests of the country.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s net approval rating stands at -29%, a figure which has decreased seven points to a new lowest net approval rating we have recorded for Johnson. This week’s poll finds 55% disapproving (up 4%) of his overall job performance, against 26% approving (down 3%).
That in many ways is a terrible poll for the Tories, possibly the worst I have seen.
Lib Dems will be up into the 20s soon, I believe
Doubt it. They’ve had a North Shropshire boost in this poll, but I suspect they’ll be back to c.10% before long. And I say that as one who wishes them well.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak receives a net approval rating of +11%, representing a four-point decrease compared to last week and a new lowest net approval rating for him. 38% say they approve of Rishi Sunak’s job performance (down 3%), while 27% disapprove (up 1%).
Keir Starmer’s net approval rating has not changed in the past week, still standing at -8%. 35% disapprove of Keir Starmer’s job performance (no change), while 27% approve (no change). Meanwhile, 33% neither approve nor disapprove of Starmer’s job performance (no change).
35% say they think Keir Starmer (no change) and 34% say they think Boris Johnson (no change) would be a better Prime Minister for the United Kingdom at this moment. Following on from last week, these results mark the second occasion Starmer is leading over Johnson in this regard since we began asking this question in June 2020.
That in many ways is a terrible poll for the Tories, possibly the worst I have seen.
Lib Dems will be up into the 20s soon, I believe
You don't remember 2019? Far worse polls for the Tories then.
Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now than Corbyn Labour's lead over the Tories then as most of the Tory leakage then was to the BXP, now it is mainly to Labour and the LDs.
If Boris imposes another lockdown though the Tory voteshare could collapse even further with leakage to RefUK
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
I wish I knew how to find old posts on here as I made a prediction of the first post-NS poll but can't remember what I said. I think I had the LDs on 13%.
Good news for the left of centre parties that this isn't churn: they are net 3% up vs 3% down for Tories + REFUK.
That in many ways is a terrible poll for the Tories, possibly the worst I have seen.
Lib Dems will be up into the 20s soon, I believe
You don't remember 2019? Far worse polls for the Tories then.
Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now than Corbyn Labour's lead over the Tories then as most of the Tory leakage then was to the BXP, now it is mainly to Labour and the LDs.
If Boris imposes another lockdown though the Tory voteshare could collapse even further with leakage to RefUK
Nope, there were polls with larger Labour leads in that period.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak receives a net approval rating of +11%, representing a four-point decrease compared to last week and a new lowest net approval rating for him. 38% say they approve of Rishi Sunak’s job performance (down 3%), while 27% disapprove (up 1%).
Labour 39% (+2) Conservative 31% (-1) Liberal Democrat 13% (+2) Green 6% (-1) Reform UK 5% (-2) Scottish National Party 5% (+1) Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 13 Dec
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
That's roughly what I was expecting after the by-election, though I thought the LibDems might pick up a couple of points from Labour too. It fits with the Fabian poll of Con/Lab marginals, where you'd expect some tactical voting to be relevant too. 58% for the centre-left vs 36% for the centre-right is a healthy lead, assuming my estimate for half the vote of the smaller party in marginals switches to the main challenger.
So covid goes the way of Brexit - decisions on how to handle it are now being made entirely with just three constituencies in mind: 1. The Tory supporting press 2. Tory backbenchers 3. Tory party members The interests of the country are not of the remotest relevance.
To paraphrase @HYUFD god help me and as regards a specific point I made against him a short while ago, any vote will or will not be passed in parliament. Any decision that cabinet makes will therefore be subject to democratic oversight. If the HoC passes it it passes the democratic oversight standard, if not, not.
The Tory supporting press can want or not want what they want. It is the Cons and Lab (and other) MPs that make the point. Of course he wants Cons backbenchers to support him but each of those Cons backbenchers has been voted in by their constituencies.
I absolutely don't think that governments should rule for their own supporters but I fail to see how locking down or not locking down is a Lab/Con thing. Is Piers Corbyn now the Uxbridge Cons PPC?
Decisions being taken through the prism of a Tory leadership contest are not decisions being taken in the best interests of the country.
Only up 8000 since Friday. Has the exponential increase stopped?
I've always been suspicious that the doubling time would remain constant. Surely as more are infected there's fewer left to infect.
Cases have been roughly level since 16th December - that is five days in a row. They were supposed to be growing with a doubling time of two days or less. Cases should therefore now be over 360,000 reported cases per day - two doublings. Today's actual figure is 91,743. This is simply incompatible with the advice of SAGE's very eminent scientists that cases are exploding out of control. Could these eminent scientists have made incorrect assumptions? Science history shows that this has happened many times in the past.
Why should the evidence of the epidemic in South Africa be discounted, as SAGE have done? Until SAGE have fully explained and justified their case, it should not be accepted.
Delta taking a helluva kicking from Omicron there!
I'm hoping that's really good news.
Yes, er, I think so. It feels like it should be?
If Omicron is milder than Delta, then even if Omicron spreads much faster, we'd want it to displace Delta, rather than have both around at once. But if the trend of the pandemic so far continues, than Omicron will displace Delta.
35% say they think Keir Starmer (no change) and 34% say they think Boris Johnson (no change) would be a better Prime Minister for the United Kingdom at this moment. Following on from last week, these results mark the second occasion Starmer is leading over Johnson in this regard since we began asking this question in June 2020.
So the consensus is that the PM is hanging on by the tips of his fingers after a solid three months of disaster after disaster - and yet Kier Starmer gets a whole 1% better than him as best PM? Not that I'd be with the 35% here either.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
Its not pointless when the decision makers are deciding whether to do nothing or to do something. The decision makers should have all relevant data regarding what happens if they do nothing and what happens if they do something.
To do nothing in the face of the virus is to do something, so that scenario needs to be there too.
35% say they think Keir Starmer (no change) and 34% say they think Boris Johnson (no change) would be a better Prime Minister for the United Kingdom at this moment. Following on from last week, these results mark the second occasion Starmer is leading over Johnson in this regard since we began asking this question in June 2020.
So the consensus is that the PM is hanging on by the tips of his fingers after a solid three months of disaster after disaster - and yet Kier Starmer gets a whole 1% better than him as best PM? Not that I'd be with the 35% here either.
Well he hasn't yet laid out his vision and reasons to vote for him. Rather he's been spending the time pointing out why you shouldn't vote for Johnson.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
The decision makers don't need to know what the relative chance of it hitting or missing is?
No. Not when the data is not good enough.
Low confidence in probability prediction and low confidence in impact prediction OR probability approaching 0 and impact approaching infinity BOTH mean that any numbers are meaningless and we have to adopt qualitative as opposed to quantitative approaches to risk management.
So it's okay to use one set of data that isn't good enough, but not another? That's the central issue, that the assumptions being used by the models are on the pessimistic side.
Yes, because one set of data contains no useful information even if the data turn out to be correct; whereas the other set does contain useful information even if the data turn out to be incorrect.
That's completely ridiculous and why governments make frankly stupid decisions.
We normally agree on much, Max. But this is not ridiculous. This is decision-making in conditions of ignorance (i.e. low confidence in predictions of probability and impact). If you want some scientific articles on this, look up Andy Stirling's work, or anything on HROs (Sutcliffe and Wieck, La Porte, and many more)
I understand I think. First they look at all the risk that needs mitigating, and consequences of the do nothing option, and then factor in what they don’t know shouldn’t prevent acting and mitigating the risk - low confidence or don’t know cannot equate to do nothing if managing risk properly?
That is it - but just for your Never Event risks - not all risks.
But Omicron isn't an asteroid hurtling towards us from space threatening to wipe out all mankind. That's where you're making the mistake and whoever in the government is treating it like one.
Some of the potential outcomes certainly meet the longstanding Cabinet Office level of risk across multiple parameters to reach Never Event status. These parameters have been in place since at least the last Labour Government.
So the thing that has genuinely suprised me looking at the SA data is the non-Gauteng data.
Gauteng went through 3 massive hospital admission increases plus a 4th decent bump before now falling in week 50. +108%,+169%, +155%, +34%
The other provinces are not doing the same. They all seem to be on a one week shorter pattern. If they had all followed the Gauteng pattern we would have been seeing SA hopsitalisations going ballistic in week 50 rather than just creating up by (a projected) 12%.
This is connected to Javid's 1 million vaccinations tweet - I didn't notice that it has the Tory party logo on the tweet. Tom Peck @tompeck Honestly think putting their party logo on the national vaccination effort and its thousands of volunteers is the most shameless thing this lot have ever done.
Yeah, I think that's out of order. A bit tacky, and a little pointless.
So covid goes the way of Brexit - decisions on how to handle it are now being made entirely with just three constituencies in mind: 1. The Tory supporting press 2. Tory backbenchers 3. Tory party members The interests of the country are not of the remotest relevance.
To paraphrase @HYUFD god help me and as regards a specific point I made against him a short while ago, any vote will or will not be passed in parliament. Any decision that cabinet makes will therefore be subject to democratic oversight. If the HoC passes it it passes the democratic oversight standard, if not, not.
The Tory supporting press can want or not want what they want. It is the Cons and Lab (and other) MPs that make the point. Of course he wants Cons backbenchers to support him but each of those Cons backbenchers has been voted in by their constituencies.
I absolutely don't think that governments should rule for their own supporters but I fail to see how locking down or not locking down is a Lab/Con thing. Is Piers Corbyn now the Uxbridge Cons PPC?
Decisions being taken through the prism of a Tory leadership contest are not decisions being taken in the best interests of the country.
Any political decision is taken through the prism of politics of one flavour or another.
Whatever Boris says, for example, Lab will oppose (although bizarrely not vote against). As is their duty. But to take masks as an example, look at the difference between the Lab Party conference (no masks) and sitting on the Opposition benches (masks). What does Lab think of mask wearing? We don't know as their actions are taken through the prism of furthering Labour's political position.
Whatever decision Boris takes is subject to a vote in the HoC. 100 MPs defied him last time which means that over 200 supported him. Which is the more "popular" option for him then leadership-wise?
* Due to uncertainty around hospitality rate, severity and effectiveness we “agreed to keep data under constant review”
* “We will have to reserve the possibility of taking further action to protect the NHS but in the meantime please exercise caution Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 3/
* Get boosted
* Restrictions? “We are looking at all kinds of things to keep Omicron under control and we can rule nothing out”
* Help for hospitality? Packages are already in place and we will keep everything under view Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 4/
* That No10 photograph? “Those were pictures of people at work talking about work”
* Sage says early intervention? Says we moved to plan b quickly and won’t hesitate to act if needed
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
You can say what you like but ultimately these are the facts - vaccine efficacy is 93-95% according to the same report as their 85% figure comes from, the 85% number exists because a 6x extra dilution effect was added and Omicron has been modelled with identical manifestation of symptoms as Delta, something we know not to be true either.
You can try and downplay that as much as you want or to try and defend it as disaster planning as much as you want but it is ultimately no better than push polling. Someone at the DoH is presenting a specific set of scenarios that precludes the most likely outcomes in order to get a specific kind of decision made - to lockdown.
What's happened is that MPs are tired of this same game playing where the scientists give outrageous numbers to them which have very low likelihood of occuring and are pushing back.
If evidence for lockdown is out there then it needs to be presented, currently the models which are screaming lockdown aren't helpful for anyone because their outcomes are not credible. No decisions will be made from them.
It's pretty clear from that clip that Boris has lost control of the Covid response and it's the Cabinet who are now controlling the Covid response. He didn't spend half a day in there because he wanted to come out and say "no change". https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1472978578040098821
That in many ways is a terrible poll for the Tories, possibly the worst I have seen.
Lib Dems will be up into the 20s soon, I believe
You don't remember 2019? Far worse polls for the Tories then.
Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now than Corbyn Labour's lead over the Tories then as most of the Tory leakage then was to the BXP, now it is mainly to Labour and the LDs.
If Boris imposes another lockdown though the Tory voteshare could collapse even further with leakage to RefUK
Nope, there were polls with larger Labour leads in that period.
There was one Panelbase poll in May 2019 which gave Corbyn Labour a 10% lead over the Tories.
* Due to uncertainty around hospitality rate, severity and effectiveness we “agreed to keep data under constant review”
* “We will have to reserve the possibility of taking further action to protect the NHS but in the meantime please exercise caution Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 3/
* Get boosted
* Restrictions? “We are looking at all kinds of things to keep Omicron under control and we can rule nothing out”
* Help for hospitality? Packages are already in place and we will keep everything under view Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 12m Johnson pool 4/
* That No10 photograph? “Those were pictures of people at work talking about work”
* Sage says early intervention? Says we moved to plan b quickly and won’t hesitate to act if needed
On the last point - no we didn't move to plan b quickly we ummed and ehhed for a week and plan b does sod all anyway to R0 levels.
That in many ways is a terrible poll for the Tories, possibly the worst I have seen.
Lib Dems will be up into the 20s soon, I believe
You don't remember 2019? Far worse polls for the Tories then.
Worse for the Tories in terms of voteshare but Labour under Starmer have a much bigger lead over the Tories now than Corbyn Labour's lead over the Tories then as most of the Tory leakage then was to the BXP, now it is mainly to Labour and the LDs.
If Boris imposes another lockdown though the Tory voteshare could collapse even further with leakage to RefUK
Nope, there were polls with larger Labour leads in that period.
There was one panelbase poll in May 2019 which gave Corbyn Labour a 10% lead over the Tories.
It's pretty clear from that clip that Boris has lost control of the Covid response and it's the Cabinet who are now controlling the Covid response. He didn't spend half a day in there because he wanted to come out and say "no change". https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1472978578040098821
Nothing wrong with Cabinet running the country. That's the idea of cabinet government.
Fraser Nelson: "So we have an asteroid that may hit the Earth?" Scientist: "Yes. And we have no idea how likely it is - only that it's heading towards us. NORAD were too busy tracking Santa Claus." Fraser Nelson: "But it may miss." Scientist: "Yes." Fraser Nelson: "So why are you only modelling what will happen if it hits?" Scientist: "Because the decision-makers need to consider what to do if the worst comes to the worst." Fraser Nelson: "But they might not have to do anything if it doesn't hit." Scientist: "But it may. And they need to think about what they'd do." Fraser Nelson: "Why didn't you model the fact it might miss?" Scientist: "Because that doesn't really help the decision-makers."
That Fraser Nelson article in the Spectator is really a whole load of nothing IMO. What the scientist said makes sense.
What a load of crap.
If the government are considering locking us down because of the virus then they need to know what's likely to happen with the virus. If the models say that the NHS isn't likely to be overwhelmed but those models are disregarded in favour of those that say it is, then that's operating with false information.
It's not (see TimT's reply).
It is.
If the government is weighing up their response then they need the full information. ' If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is - then do you seriously think the government should only be shown the 0.1% scenario without any qualification of caveat or rating of how likely it is?
They should get the full information, and be allowed to judge with full knowledge whether the risk of these so-called "never events" are worth acting over or not. If they don't have the full information, then they can't weigh that up.
"If the full information says for instance there's a 99.9% chance that the NHS won't be overwhelmed, but there's a 0.1% chance that it is"
But that's not what Nelson was talking about (although he moved onto that at the end). He was talking about a lack of a model that replicated some of JP Morgan's modelling, not the probabilities of any scenario.
Nelson was talking about modelling that used data that the scientists had recognised. But since this model didn't give "the right" answer it was disregarded.
If you decide in advance to disregard all models that don't give a certain outcome, then you've prejudiced your work in advance.
I might suggest you reread what I (and especially TimT) have written.
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
Its not pointless when the decision makers are deciding whether to do nothing or to do something. The decision makers should have all relevant data regarding what happens if they do nothing and what happens if they do something.
To do nothing in the face of the virus is to do something, so that scenario needs to be there too.
Are you saying they're unaware there are scenarios where they need to do nothing? Really? The important thing they need to know from this modelling is: if it goes to sh*t, how much in the sh*t does it go?
It's pretty clear from that clip that Boris has lost control of the Covid response and it's the Cabinet who are now controlling the Covid response. He didn't spend half a day in there because he wanted to come out and say "no change". https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1472978578040098821
Weak though this cabinet is, you have to say that's progress.
Comments
when we are in a rapidly changing environment like this, we've got to look shorter than WoW. It's harder data to pick trends out from. And - in line with previous weeks - I would certainly expect Wednesday's figures to be bigger than today's. But at some point the exponentiation will cease, and if we only look at WoW figures we won't notice it until six or seven days too late.
Also should be emphasised that we are not in one wave: we are in the sum of a lot of little waves. Which means the shape of the wave will be unpredictable. It could be that London has peaked already but that the north west and west midlands are about to go through what London did last week.
What the government modellers are saying is that Omicron is an unknown unknown, but it isn't and that's why there's so much push back on their doom scenarios.
(Now that's a *really* obscure pun.)
So if we need a lockdown or mandatory across the board vaxports anywhere it should be in London until more of them get their boosters
Meanwhile, Truss is posting selfies onto Instagram, Rishi is doing a sudoku, and Boris is masturbating listlessly into a large bucket supplied for that use by the Cab Sec.
Tories down to 1997 levels again
Full Results (20 Dec):
Labour 39% (+2)
Conservative 31% (-1)
Liberal Democrat 13% (+2)
Green 6% (-1)
Reform UK 5% (-2)
Scottish National Party 5% (+1)
Other 2% (+1)
Changes +/- 13 Dec
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
On the one hand we had apparent evidence coming out of Iraq as Hans Blix and his team of inspectors failed to turn up any hard and fast evidence for a WMD programme. Every few days that went by, every report back to the UN, the evidence that there was anything at all being hidden seemed to become weaker. We could all see it with our own eyes.
On the other hand, the consensus of public opinion remained convinced there was a big WMD stockpile. It was deductive thinking: Saddam has WMD, therefore he must be hiding them very effectively. Meanwhile we heard, via the UK media, of all sorts of frightening things that intelligence had access too but which were too scary to share with the British public.
Then even in the first weeks after the invasion the search, ever more forelorn, kept going.
I was someone who opposed the invasion from the start but I was nonetheless convinced Saddam had WMD. Who was I to doubt the intelligence services? It was only weeks afterwards that the remarkable truth came out: that Saddam had been bluffing all along.
It feels like that now. Not that there is some nefarious conspiracy to cover up some innate truth about mildness, but that we are so conditioned to Covid variants being generally bad news that even with the South African equivalents of Hans Blix turning up repeated evidence, nobody is in the mood to listen. The narrative is set.
Time to kick these buggers out and put a new lot in.
The Tory supporting press can want or not want what they want. It is the Cons and Lab (and other) MPs that make the point. Of course he wants Cons backbenchers to support him but each of those Cons backbenchers has been voted in by their constituencies.
I absolutely don't think that governments should rule for their own supporters but I fail to see how locking down or not locking down is a Lab/Con thing. Is Piers Corbyn now the Uxbridge Cons PPC?
Lib Dems will be up into the 20s soon, I believe
https://mobile.twitter.com/sajidjavid
So would effectively be 2010 in reverse, with Boris as Brown and Starmer as Cameron having won most seats in a hung parliament and a likely Labour-LD agreement for government this time rather than the Tory-LD coalition of 2010
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=31&LAB=39&LIB=13&Reform=5&Green=6&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=20.5&SCOTLAB=19&SCOTLIB=6.5&SCOTReform=1&SCOTGreen=1.5&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
The SNP are irrelevant and we'd have a centre ground, moderate Government. Yes please
That's what the parties advancing in the polls are advocating.
He said that any legal mandate for further restrictions had to be weighed against other society harms and benefits eg the economy - businesses and those working for them - mental health, education, etc, etc.
Scotland only has advice which I think is the right way ahead here. But then I would say that as an ex-Cons Boris-as-PM loather, right?
Presenter of Countdown on Channel 4: The Establishment
Scion of an aristocratic family stretching back to the 15th century - Totally 100% Not the Establishment.
https://twitter.com/Daniel_Sugarman/status/1472951747136086016?s=20
https://www.theslowroasteditalian.com/2012/08/stars-and-stripes-red-white-blue.html
Wow. That’s amazing 😋 The white could be more ... well ... white.
But I'll do one over Christmas.
Their constituents are the interests of the country.
If Boris imposes another lockdown though the Tory voteshare could collapse even further with leakage to RefUK
There is no point in presenting reasonable scenarios where the decision-makers need to do nothing, because that's pointless. The decision-makers need to know the scenarios where they may have to do things, so they can consider them.
The probabilities may come later.
I assumed when Max and others were going on about the Nelson article, that the scientist had said something outrageous. Instead he said something utterly sensible, and Nelson has either misunderstood the point of the modelling, or is deliberately shit-stirring. The scientist should have explained a little better, though.
I wish I knew how to find old posts on here as I made a prediction of the first post-NS poll but can't remember what I said. I think I had the LDs on 13%.
Good news for the left of centre parties that this isn't churn: they are net 3% up vs 3% down for Tories + REFUK.
We must post this whenever Aaron Bastani is mentioned
https://twitter.com/steverichards14/status/1472977186567213058
Con 30
Lab 39
Lib Dem 13
That was Lab and Lib Dem exactly the same as this one, with the Tories 1% worse.
So let's hope it's *much* milder.
LAB: 39% (+2)
CON: 31% (-1)
LDEM: 13% (+2)
GRN: 6% (-1)
REFUK: 5% (-2)
via @RedfieldWilton, 20 Dec
Chgs. w/ 13 Dec
https://www.newstatesman.com/the-latest-polls-britain-elects
To do nothing in the face of the virus is to do something, so that scenario needs to be there too.
Gauteng went through 3 massive hospital admission increases plus a 4th decent bump before now falling in week 50. +108%,+169%, +155%, +34%
The other provinces are not doing the same. They all seem to be on a one week shorter pattern. If they had all followed the Gauteng pattern we would have been seeing SA hopsitalisations going ballistic in week 50 rather than just creating up by (a projected) 12%.
Whatever Boris says, for example, Lab will oppose (although bizarrely not vote against). As is their duty. But to take masks as an example, look at the difference between the Lab Party conference (no masks) and sitting on the Opposition benches (masks). What does Lab think of mask wearing? We don't know as their actions are taken through the prism of furthering Labour's political position.
Whatever decision Boris takes is subject to a vote in the HoC. 100 MPs defied him last time which means that over 200 supported him. Which is the more "popular" option for him then leadership-wise?
* “Long” discussion in cabinet
* Situation “difficult and arguments finely balanced”
* Right to go fast for Plan B / booster
5:01 PM · Dec 20, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
25
Retweets
26
Quote Tweets
49
Likes
Sam Coates Sky
@SamCoatesSky
·
12m
Replying to
@SamCoatesSky
Johnson pool 2 /
* Due to uncertainty around hospitality rate, severity and effectiveness we “agreed to keep data under constant review”
* “We will have to reserve the possibility of taking further action to protect the NHS but in the meantime please exercise caution
Sam Coates Sky
@SamCoatesSky
·
12m
Johnson pool 3/
* Get boosted
* Restrictions? “We are looking at all kinds of things to keep Omicron under control and we can rule nothing out”
* Help for hospitality? Packages are already in place and we will keep everything under view
Sam Coates Sky
@SamCoatesSky
·
12m
Johnson pool 4/
* That No10 photograph? “Those were pictures of people at work talking about work”
* Sage says early intervention? Says we moved to plan b quickly and won’t hesitate to act if needed
You can try and downplay that as much as you want or to try and defend it as disaster planning as much as you want but it is ultimately no better than push polling. Someone at the DoH is presenting a specific set of scenarios that precludes the most likely outcomes in order to get a specific kind of decision made - to lockdown.
What's happened is that MPs are tired of this same game playing where the scientists give outrageous numbers to them which have very low likelihood of occuring and are pushing back.
If evidence for lockdown is out there then it needs to be presented, currently the models which are screaming lockdown aren't helpful for anyone because their outcomes are not credible. No decisions will be made from them.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1472978578040098821
However Corbyn Labour were only on 31% then as opposed to the 39% Starmer Labour are on now, with May's Tories on just 21% with most Tory leakage to the BXP who were on 19% as opposed to the just 5% RefUK are on now
https://www.drg.global/wp-content/uploads/W7181w20-ST-GB-tables-for-publication-210519.pdf