Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Why I’m laying Liz for Leader – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited December 2021 in General
Why I’m laying Liz for Leader – politicalbetting.com

Wishing everyone in the UK and around the world a merry Christmas ?? ? pic.twitter.com/xPmsm2t7JH

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • First like Labour
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,255
    edited December 2021
    First, unlike Liz.

    Edit: nope. Second, possibly like Liz?
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710

    Shaun Lintern
    @ShaunLintern
    ·
    14m
    "It is predicted that the London Ambulance Service (LAS), Emergency Departments (EDs) and the General and Acute (G&A) bed base are likely to become overwhelmed due to rising Covid demand in the next 2-3 weeks" - NHS London warning today reported by HSJ
    Shaun Lintern
    @ShaunLintern
    ·
    3m
    As previously reported by
    @thesundaytimes
    NHS England internally has been warning of a peak by the first two weeks of January...there is little doubt about the wave...only its size. But are hospitals, ambulances and community services ready?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,975
    I backed her at 100/1. I now have a difficult 4 hours ahead of me trying to understand this laying back thing. Confewsing.
  • Excellent piece @Richard_Nabavi.

    I am considering laying a bit off my Truss bet from a year ago at 30/1
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 33,021
    eek said:


    Shaun Lintern
    @ShaunLintern
    ·
    14m
    "It is predicted that the London Ambulance Service (LAS), Emergency Departments (EDs) and the General and Acute (G&A) bed base are likely to become overwhelmed due to rising Covid demand in the next 2-3 weeks" - NHS London warning today reported by HSJ
    Shaun Lintern
    @ShaunLintern
    ·
    3m
    As previously reported by
    @thesundaytimes
    NHS England internally has been warning of a peak by the first two weeks of January...there is little doubt about the wave...only its size. But are hospitals, ambulances and community services ready?

    Friend in a hospital (yeah I know - she's a phlebotomist but still an anecdote) says that Covid patients no change - this was over the weekend - but plenty of staff off isolating.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    edited December 2021
    Clearly massive falling out in the cabinet, with Boris only to come out and go yes, no, data, observation, vrrrrroom vrrroooom.

    Where as the opposition are we would do something, don't know what, whatever SAGE says, but which of their options, well something, just not nothing.

    Throw the lot of them out.
  • I wonder whose idea it was to hand her this poisoned chalice?

    In some respects it represents a massive victory for the Foreign Office as they now have EU policy back under their wing.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710
    edited December 2021
    TOPPING said:

    eek said:


    Shaun Lintern
    @ShaunLintern
    ·
    14m
    "It is predicted that the London Ambulance Service (LAS), Emergency Departments (EDs) and the General and Acute (G&A) bed base are likely to become overwhelmed due to rising Covid demand in the next 2-3 weeks" - NHS London warning today reported by HSJ
    Shaun Lintern
    @ShaunLintern
    ·
    3m
    As previously reported by
    @thesundaytimes
    NHS England internally has been warning of a peak by the first two weeks of January...there is little doubt about the wave...only its size. But are hospitals, ambulances and community services ready?

    Friend in a hospital (yeah I know - she's a phlebotomist but still an anecdote) says that Covid patients no change - this was over the weekend - but plenty of staff off isolating.
    Wards (and more) being closed because staff are isolating seems a lot more plausible than patient numbers going sky high.

    That's the sort of thing that is impossible to predict and impossible to sanely deal with.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,869
    FPT: @ClippP Not sure I understand what you mean. Of course I'm a lost cause to the LDs, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't hope to see wisdom in their ideas.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,094
    Truss lacks support?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 5,153

    Clearly massive falling out in the cabinet, with Boris only to come out and go yes, no, data, observation, vrrrrroom vrrroooom.

    Where as the opposition are we would do something, don't know what, whatever SAGE says, but which of their options, well something, just not nothing.

    Throw the lot of them out.

    Throughout the pandemic, there has been a case of 'something must be done - this is something - therefore let's do this'.
    Finally today this has been resisted. Possibly accidentally, but still.
    When what you're proposing is damaging and pointless - don't do it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    Well, you're not the first person to lay Liz, Richard...
  • 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.
    No this is utterly wrong. If you have a whole range of possible scenarios and you only present the ones that result in action then you are taking the responsibility for decision making away from the politicians and giving it to the unelected scientists. By removing the scenarios where nothing needs to be done you are forcing the politicians into a position where they either do something - even if it is probably unnecessary - or they can be accused of ignoring the evidence as it was presented to them. It is absolutely vital that the advisors present all possible scenarios and weigh them for the decision makers.
    It is not utterly wrong. It is presenting the scenarios that need stuff doing about them.

    "Present all possible scenarios"

    And how many different scenarios is that? Ten? a hundred? A thousand?

    The scientists are saying: "these are the sh*t scenarios. These are the ones that, if they occur, we will need to take actions on." Presenting scenarios that need no action is pointless - because there are no actions required. It doesn't mean the politicians are being told these will happen, or that these are the only scenarios. They are the ones to worry about.

    It's not that they're saying these are the only scenarios that may happen; or the probabilities of them happening; they're the ones the politicians really need to worry about.

    It's simple stuff.
    FPT

    The problem is that right now people think the most optomistic scenario from SAGE is for a peak of 3000 admissions a day, as that is their lowest model. Except other models suggest this is NOT the lowest possible. The narrative is running that if we do nothing, we will definitely see a minimum of 3000 admissions a day. It’s dishonest.
    I’m not blaming the scientists entirely here, I want to know what instructions they are getting.
    and 3000 admissions a day is what - 4 or 5 people per parliamentary constituency? Hardly seems catastrophic thinking it about it like that
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 93,284
    edited December 2021
    Truss is a former Remainer and republican now convinced Brexiteer and constitutional monarchist, as she told Nick Robinson earlier this month constitutional monarchy is a bulwark of UK democracy.
    However her past could come back to haunt her and she could get stuck on the NIP.

    She also needs some polls showing her with net favourables at least matching Starmer's as Sunak has as the Tories will want a more popular leader if Boris goes
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,485

    Clearly massive falling out in the cabinet, with Boris only to come out and go yes, no, data, observation, vrrrrroom vrrroooom.

    Where as the opposition are we would do something, don't know what, whatever SAGE says, but which of their options, well something, just not nothing.

    Throw the lot of them out.

    We are clearly heading into the "nothing has changed" presser portion of the Boris era... and we all know what happened next last time around.
  • A very well written and persuasive header. I can't think of anything Richard has missed, except perhaps just that Truss seems unbelievably fake.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,719
    Good header, Richard. I don’t believe for a moment that disliking the direction of travel on Covid was the real reason for Frost’s resignation. Rather he realised that he wasn’t going to be able to maintain the bluster any longer.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 139

    Clearly massive falling out in the cabinet, with Boris only to come out and go yes, no, data, observation, vrrrrroom vrrroooom.

    Where as the opposition are we would do something, don't know what, whatever SAGE says, but which of their options, well something, just not nothing.

    Throw the lot of them out.


    You could always assess the situation yourself and make your own decisions, Mr Urquhart?

  • Clearly massive falling out in the cabinet, with Boris only to come out and go yes, no, data, observation, vrrrrroom vrrroooom.

    Where as the opposition are we would do something, don't know what, whatever SAGE says, but which of their options, well something, just not nothing.

    Throw the lot of them out.

    You are failing to follow @JosiasJessop closely enough. There are a number of scenarios where nothing needs to be done, they are following one of those.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985

    A very well written and persuasive header. I can't think of anything Richard has missed, except perhaps just that Truss seems unbelievably fake.

    I think her other weakness is she's Continuity Johnson. All of his strengths, such as they are, all of his flaws, which are painfully apparent. If Johnson is forced out that's not going to help her.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,869

    Good header, Richard. I don’t believe for a moment that disliking the direction of travel on Covid was the real reason for Frost’s resignation. Rather he realised that he wasn’t going to be able to maintain the bluster any longer.

    He has said that pretty clearly and unambiguously. I'd have guessed otherwise, but as he's said it so clearly I think I have to believe what he says.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 3,884

    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.
    No this is utterly wrong. If you have a whole range of possible scenarios and you only present the ones that result in action then you are taking the responsibility for decision making away from the politicians and giving it to the unelected scientists. By removing the scenarios where nothing needs to be done you are forcing the politicians into a position where they either do something - even if it is probably unnecessary - or they can be accused of ignoring the evidence as it was presented to them. It is absolutely vital that the advisors present all possible scenarios and weigh them for the decision makers.
    It is not utterly wrong. It is presenting the scenarios that need stuff doing about them.

    "Present all possible scenarios"

    And how many different scenarios is that? Ten? a hundred? A thousand?

    The scientists are saying: "these are the sh*t scenarios. These are the ones that, if they occur, we will need to take actions on." Presenting scenarios that need no action is pointless - because there are no actions required. It doesn't mean the politicians are being told these will happen, or that these are the only scenarios. They are the ones to worry about.

    It's not that they're saying these are the only scenarios that may happen; or the probabilities of them happening; they're the ones the politicians really need to worry about.

    It's simple stuff.
    FPT

    The problem is that right now people think the most optomistic scenario from SAGE is for a peak of 3000 admissions a day, as that is their lowest model. Except other models suggest this is NOT the lowest possible. The narrative is running that if we do nothing, we will definitely see a minimum of 3000 admissions a day. It’s dishonest.
    I’m not blaming the scientists entirely here, I want to know what instructions they are getting.
    Then I'd blame those telling the people that this is the issue without a fair grasp on what SAGE and SPI-M-O are doing, or their terms of reference, or the specifics of decision making during a period of ignorance but with the possibility of a Never Event (as described by TimT).

    That would be the attention-seekers of the media and some Twitter commentators. Who grab stuff, skim it for an attention-grabbing takeaway line, and plaster it everywhere they can.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 5,153
    It should be borne in mind that popularity amongst the selectorate is only very loosely correlated with administrative success. It's more about positioning, clubbability, building of alliances, ease with the media, ease on the eye... I'd say Liz still scores quite strongly on these measures.
    David Cameron, of course, had almost no administrative success whatsoever before he became leader. He was an opposition spokesman who spoke reasonably well.
    Theresa May presided over the home office for an age and managed to avoid either success or serious blame.
    Boris...
  • The job certainly looks more like "Brexit Muggins" than "Brexit Supremo", as Sir Humphrey elegantly put it.

    How much time does Lizzie T have before the job blows up in her face?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,823
    Excellent article is Richard.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,660
    edited December 2021
    Thanks, Richard, really good piece. She's a lay alright. Set up to fail - in the crazies eyes - on NI. And in any case she's rather vacuous. Parties tend to veer away from what they've just had so I expect BJ's replacement, when it happens, to be a fairly solid thinker.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,321
    Truss would be a case of the Tories making the same mistake twice, which would be very bad form. Form demands a fresh mistake.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    Omnium said:

    Good header, Richard. I don’t believe for a moment that disliking the direction of travel on Covid was the real reason for Frost’s resignation. Rather he realised that he wasn’t going to be able to maintain the bluster any longer.

    He has said that pretty clearly and unambiguously. I'd have guessed otherwise, but as he's said it so clearly I think I have to believe what he says.
    Many cabinet ministers have said one thing is the reason for their resignation when it's actually another. In any case, normally there's more than one reason. As we saw today, the Cabinet have blocked any restrictions. Moreover, Frost's departure seems to have been agreed some time ago, when this wasn't on the horizon.

    What people say and what they actually do are two different things.
  • I see we are nearing the full peak of "speaking in a personal capacity" of the latest stage of covid crisis.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,124
    Endillion said:

    On topics, this is monstrously unfair on Truss. One of the key arguments against Brexit was that we benefitted from Brussels signing trade deals on our behalf, which were on much more beneficial terms than we could hope to negotiate ourselves. It would therefore not be possible to simply roll over the agreed terms if we left - instead, we would face countries negotiating us down to much less favourable terms, because everyone knew we would be desperate. Truss has singly-handedly proven that notion false, and made her immediate predecessor as Trade Sec (DNSR Fox) look like the useless prat he is in the process. She has done so with a Trade Department that has limited experience in signing trade deals of any kind, because they haven't done so for decades. Writing that off as no great achievement, is unfair.

    I wouldn't say, monstrously unfair, but there is something in your complaint. Congratulating someone for holding onto most, but not all, of what you already had, might seem like damning with faint praise, but someone had to do the project management, requiring considerable hard work, negotiating skill and being on top of the detail. That person wasn't Liz Truss but she gets to claim the credit for the work done within her department. Them's the breaks.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 41,069
    Saw another big march in Newcastle yesterday. The anti vaxxers are irrational bordering on mad but they are also seriously angry. Lots of posters with Boriss with the s’s in a predictable style.

    I am either incredibly unlucky or these marches are very common. It’s a real problem for any defence system based on boosters.

    Engaging with them is hard but treating them with contempt as or the Saj is not productive either.
  • For what it is worth, I half expect a leadership contest between Sunak and Truss to reveal that both are relative newbies and not battle hardened in the dark arts of a Tory contest.

    Perhaps Hunt will come through the middle.
  • First like Labour

    Hope you are well @Sunil_Prasannan :)
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,869
    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    Good header, Richard. I don’t believe for a moment that disliking the direction of travel on Covid was the real reason for Frost’s resignation. Rather he realised that he wasn’t going to be able to maintain the bluster any longer.

    He has said that pretty clearly and unambiguously. I'd have guessed otherwise, but as he's said it so clearly I think I have to believe what he says.
    Many cabinet ministers have said one thing is the reason for their resignation when it's actually another. In any case, normally there's more than one reason. As we saw today, the Cabinet have blocked any restrictions. Moreover, Frost's departure seems to have been agreed some time ago, when this wasn't on the horizon.

    What people say and what they actually do are two different things.
    Give me 'many' examples then.
  • 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.
    No this is utterly wrong. If you have a whole range of possible scenarios and you only present the ones that result in action then you are taking the responsibility for decision making away from the politicians and giving it to the unelected scientists. By removing the scenarios where nothing needs to be done you are forcing the politicians into a position where they either do something - even if it is probably unnecessary - or they can be accused of ignoring the evidence as it was presented to them. It is absolutely vital that the advisors present all possible scenarios and weigh them for the decision makers.
    It is not utterly wrong. It is presenting the scenarios that need stuff doing about them.

    "Present all possible scenarios"

    And how many different scenarios is that? Ten? a hundred? A thousand?

    The scientists are saying: "these are the sh*t scenarios. These are the ones that, if they occur, we will need to take actions on." Presenting scenarios that need no action is pointless - because there are no actions required. It doesn't mean the politicians are being told these will happen, or that these are the only scenarios. They are the ones to worry about.

    It's not that they're saying these are the only scenarios that may happen; or the probabilities of them happening; they're the ones the politicians really need to worry about.

    It's simple stuff.
    FPT

    The problem is that right now people think the most optomistic scenario from SAGE is for a peak of 3000 admissions a day, as that is their lowest model. Except other models suggest this is NOT the lowest possible. The narrative is running that if we do nothing, we will definitely see a minimum of 3000 admissions a day. It’s dishonest.
    I’m not blaming the scientists entirely here, I want to know what instructions they are getting.
    Then I'd blame those telling the people that this is the issue without a fair grasp on what SAGE and SPI-M-O are doing, or their terms of reference, or the specifics of decision making during a period of ignorance but with the possibility of a Never Event (as described by TimT).

    That would be the attention-seekers of the media and some Twitter commentators. Who grab stuff, skim it for an attention-grabbing takeaway line, and plaster it everywhere they can.
    Bingo. What about those that call these scientists 'fascists' - what's your opinion on them?
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 9,664
    edited December 2021
    fpt

    @ Cyclefree

    Is there anyone in government with any understanding of the supply chain? Anyone at all??

    Daughter has to place her orders for the week by midnight tonight.

    She is operating on the assumption that she might just make it to Xmas. And will close thereafter. If she is allowed to open on NY people will just have to drink what is left. She is not buying any fresh stock and risk losing it.

    We went through all this nonsense last year and nothing has been learnt. Fullers is closing many of its pubs in London because they simply cannot operate like this.

    The government's behaviour is pitiful. The one certainty I have is that our health and the health of our businesses are not even in the Top 10 considerations affecting what the government is doing. It's all about what is good for individual Tory politicians.

    I intend paying absolutely no regard to what the government says. Just do what I think right for my family. The government can go fuck itself.



    That's very much my attitude now, Cyclefree.

    Throughout the pandemic I've been a good citizen, doing very as the Government bid and cutting it a good deal of slack because of the manifest difficulty of the task it has faced. No more. I've have seen at first hand why a wishy-washy policy gives us the worst of all possible worlds and have decided to simply ignore its instructions.

    This is not to say I will behave irresponsibly. I will use my own common sense and judgement and avoid putting others at risk unnecessarily. But I will decide. The Government has lost all credibility with me. It looks increasingly as if it is being driven by political expedience.
  • ydoethur said:

    A very well written and persuasive header. I can't think of anything Richard has missed, except perhaps just that Truss seems unbelievably fake.

    I think her other weakness is she's Continuity Johnson. All of his strengths, such as they are, all of his flaws, which are painfully apparent. If Johnson is forced out that's not going to help her.
    She's got better hair and isn't married to Carrie.

    If the Conservatives don't want to acknowledge that Johnson was a massive mistake and the 2019 win came at a huge medium-term price, she's a handy comfort blanket.
  • I agree this is a hospital pass for Truss.

    Conversely, she goes into that job with political capital to spend. If she can eke out a resolution that Brexit purists hate (because they will) but the more pragmatic of their number dislike but concede is just about agreeable, she could still walk away with minor scratches and even the odd begrudging “Well, at least she got it sorted.” We all know she isn’t backwards about coming forwards too - spin it as another deal done by mighty dealmaker Liz, pepper it with a lot of emojis, and she might just get away with it.

    I see her weaknesses as being less to do with this actually, and more the fact that, although a darling of the Tory Party, she’s a bit of an unknown beyond political circles. Most people only really know her because she once gave a mortifyingly wooden speech about cheese and pork markets. What is her proposal to take to the electorate? What is her vision? How does she appeal to the man on the street?

    Of all of the senior Tories I admit I rather like her. But she also has a slightly startled, confused aura about her, which can make her come off as lightweight. She could have that trained out of her (you can see she has worked on this somewhat from her early Cameroon days, the product perhaps of some Thatcher-esque coaching?) but there’s still work to be done there.
  • Hope you are well @Peter_the_Punter and @Richard_Nabavi :)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 33,021
    kinabalu said:

    Thanks, Richard, really good piece. She's a lay alright. Set up to fail - in the crazies eyes - on NI. And in any case she's rather vacuous. Parties tend to veer away from what they've just had so I expect BJ's replacement, when it happens, to be a fairly solid thinker.

    Would one describe a man as being "vacuous"?
  • I personally think Sunak will wait until the Tories are in opposition
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,847
    DavidL said:

    Saw another big march in Newcastle yesterday. The anti vaxxers are irrational bordering on mad but they are also seriously angry. Lots of posters with Boriss with the s’s in a predictable style.

    I am either incredibly unlucky or these marches are very common. It’s a real problem for any defence system based on boosters.

    Engaging with them is hard but treating them with contempt as or the Saj is not productive either.

    To be utterly cynical, it is nothing that a dose of Omicron won't cure...
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,472

    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.
    No this is utterly wrong. If you have a whole range of possible scenarios and you only present the ones that result in action then you are taking the responsibility for decision making away from the politicians and giving it to the unelected scientists. By removing the scenarios where nothing needs to be done you are forcing the politicians into a position where they either do something - even if it is probably unnecessary - or they can be accused of ignoring the evidence as it was presented to them. It is absolutely vital that the advisors present all possible scenarios and weigh them for the decision makers.
    It is not utterly wrong. It is presenting the scenarios that need stuff doing about them.

    "Present all possible scenarios"

    And how many different scenarios is that? Ten? a hundred? A thousand?

    The scientists are saying: "these are the sh*t scenarios. These are the ones that, if they occur, we will need to take actions on." Presenting scenarios that need no action is pointless - because there are no actions required. It doesn't mean the politicians are being told these will happen, or that these are the only scenarios. They are the ones to worry about.

    It's not that they're saying these are the only scenarios that may happen; or the probabilities of them happening; they're the ones the politicians really need to worry about.

    It's simple stuff.
    FPT

    The problem is that right now people think the most optomistic scenario from SAGE is for a peak of 3000 admissions a day, as that is their lowest model. Except other models suggest this is NOT the lowest possible. The narrative is running that if we do nothing, we will definitely see a minimum of 3000 admissions a day. It’s dishonest.
    I’m not blaming the scientists entirely here, I want to know what instructions they are getting.
    Then I'd blame those telling the people that this is the issue without a fair grasp on what SAGE and SPI-M-O are doing, or their terms of reference, or the specifics of decision making during a period of ignorance but with the possibility of a Never Event (as described by TimT).

    That would be the attention-seekers of the media and some Twitter commentators. Who grab stuff, skim it for an attention-grabbing takeaway line, and plaster it everywhere they can.
    Why use knowingly incorrect data points for model inputs, though? However you cut it that's just bad practice and now they've managed to lose their last ounce of credibility with the politicians. The fault lies with whoever is asking for them to do that, sure, but also with them for not having the professional integrity to flag that up as bad practice. They're being asked to put their finger on the scale so someone can use their findings to push the lockdown decision making process forwards. As it turned out Cabinet took exception to being presented data that has no basis in reality.
  • https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1473006797917245455

    NEW: Matt Hancock is in the cheese and wine photo from the Downing Street garden, Telegraph can reveal.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    Good header, Richard. I don’t believe for a moment that disliking the direction of travel on Covid was the real reason for Frost’s resignation. Rather he realised that he wasn’t going to be able to maintain the bluster any longer.

    He has said that pretty clearly and unambiguously. I'd have guessed otherwise, but as he's said it so clearly I think I have to believe what he says.
    Many cabinet ministers have said one thing is the reason for their resignation when it's actually another. In any case, normally there's more than one reason. As we saw today, the Cabinet have blocked any restrictions. Moreover, Frost's departure seems to have been agreed some time ago, when this wasn't on the horizon.

    What people say and what they actually do are two different things.
    Give me 'many' examples then.
    Arthur Balfour
    Winston Churchill
    Reginald McKenna
    Bonar Law (1921)
    Robert Cecil
    Lord Salisbury
    Peter Thorneycroft
    Frank Soskice
    Lord Carrington
    Ian Gilmour
    Michael Heseltine
    Nigel Lawson
    Geoffrey Howe
    John Redwood
    Frank Field
    James Purnell

    And that's without even thinking too much. Ostensibly all these people resigned for one reason, but in reality it was a multiplicity of reasons or a different reason from the one given - for example Purnell said it was to forestall a Tory general election victory but in fact he was just frustrated with the direction of the government and the way it was being mismanaged.
  • First like Labour

    Hope you are well @Sunil_Prasannan :)
    Thanks, CHB. Hope you are doing well too!
  • Endillion said:

    First, unlike Liz.

    Edit: nope. Second, possibly like Liz?

    In God we Truss?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,472

    I personally think Sunak will wait until the Tories are in opposition

    That doesn't make any sense at all. The office will make him tough to beat and he'll start with an 80 seat majority. Simply being the incumbent would give him a huge advantage.
  • https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1473006797917245455

    NEW: Matt Hancock is in the cheese and wine photo from the Downing Street garden, Telegraph can reveal.

    Hadn't he just given the press conference?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985

    Endillion said:

    First, unlike Liz.

    Edit: nope. Second, possibly like Liz?

    In God we Truss?
    All others must pay cash.
  • Hilarious article Richard Nabavi. I salute you.

    I'm sending it around my friends. Brilliant.
  • MaxPB said:

    I personally think Sunak will wait until the Tories are in opposition

    That doesn't make any sense at all. The office will make him tough to beat and he'll start with an 80 seat majority. Simply being the incumbent would give him a huge advantage.
    If he goes for it now, he will hold the economic bomb when it goes off
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,526
    edited December 2021
    Prof Pagel, defending SAGE modelling, told Times Radio that SAGE does a range of modelling and the worst cases don't happen because government does something. .˙. this does not mean modelling is wrong.

    That is not the point. The point Fraser Nelson winkled out of Medley is that SAGE don't model the stuff where actually this is going to be ok, because there is no point.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,472

    MaxPB said:

    I personally think Sunak will wait until the Tories are in opposition

    That doesn't make any sense at all. The office will make him tough to beat and he'll start with an 80 seat majority. Simply being the incumbent would give him a huge advantage.
    If he goes for it now, he will hold the economic bomb when it goes off
    They said that about the winners in 2010 as well, yet the Tories are still in power now, almost 12 years later. It's always better to be in power than not, I think it's about the only thing Tories agree on, at least in my experience of being a member.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,869
    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    Good header, Richard. I don’t believe for a moment that disliking the direction of travel on Covid was the real reason for Frost’s resignation. Rather he realised that he wasn’t going to be able to maintain the bluster any longer.

    He has said that pretty clearly and unambiguously. I'd have guessed otherwise, but as he's said it so clearly I think I have to believe what he says.
    Many cabinet ministers have said one thing is the reason for their resignation when it's actually another. In any case, normally there's more than one reason. As we saw today, the Cabinet have blocked any restrictions. Moreover, Frost's departure seems to have been agreed some time ago, when this wasn't on the horizon.

    What people say and what they actually do are two different things.
    Give me 'many' examples then.
    Arthur Balfour
    Winston Churchill
    Reginald McKenna
    Bonar Law (1921)
    Robert Cecil
    Lord Salisbury
    Peter Thorneycroft
    Frank Soskice
    Lord Carrington
    Ian Gilmour
    Michael Heseltine
    Nigel Lawson
    Geoffrey Howe
    John Redwood
    Frank Field
    James Purnell

    And that's without even thinking too much. Ostensibly all these people resigned for one reason, but in reality it was a multiplicity of reasons or a different reason from the one given - for example Purnell said it was to forestall a Tory general election victory but in fact he was just frustrated with the direction of the government and the way it was being mismanaged.
    You may believe that their reasons weren't as stated, but I doubt you have much evidence as such.

    There's not a chance in hell that Geoffrey Howe resigned for other than the stated reasons for example.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 5,153
    MaxPB said:

    I personally think Sunak will wait until the Tories are in opposition

    That doesn't make any sense at all. The office will make him tough to beat and he'll start with an 80 seat majority. Simply being the incumbent would give him a huge advantage.
    Also, the norm for my lifetime is for long periods of incumbency: 18 years of Tory PMs, followed by 13 years of Labour PMs, then (so far) 11 years of Tory PMs. If that pattern, you don't particularly want to be the Michael Foot or William Hague or Ed Miliband.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    Good header, Richard. I don’t believe for a moment that disliking the direction of travel on Covid was the real reason for Frost’s resignation. Rather he realised that he wasn’t going to be able to maintain the bluster any longer.

    He has said that pretty clearly and unambiguously. I'd have guessed otherwise, but as he's said it so clearly I think I have to believe what he says.
    Many cabinet ministers have said one thing is the reason for their resignation when it's actually another. In any case, normally there's more than one reason. As we saw today, the Cabinet have blocked any restrictions. Moreover, Frost's departure seems to have been agreed some time ago, when this wasn't on the horizon.

    What people say and what they actually do are two different things.
    Give me 'many' examples then.
    Arthur Balfour
    Winston Churchill
    Reginald McKenna
    Bonar Law (1921)
    Robert Cecil
    Lord Salisbury
    Peter Thorneycroft
    Frank Soskice
    Lord Carrington
    Ian Gilmour
    Michael Heseltine
    Nigel Lawson
    Geoffrey Howe
    John Redwood
    Frank Field
    James Purnell

    And that's without even thinking too much. Ostensibly all these people resigned for one reason, but in reality it was a multiplicity of reasons or a different reason from the one given - for example Purnell said it was to forestall a Tory general election victory but in fact he was just frustrated with the direction of the government and the way it was being mismanaged.
    You may believe that their reasons weren't as stated, but I doubt you have much evidence as such.

    There's not a chance in hell that Geoffrey Howe resigned for other than the stated reasons for example.
    Which one of the reasons? The reasons he gave at the time or the rather more complex picture he revealed in his autobiography?
  • Brenda staying at Windsor this Christmas. Limited family presence.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,710

    MaxPB said:

    I personally think Sunak will wait until the Tories are in opposition

    That doesn't make any sense at all. The office will make him tough to beat and he'll start with an 80 seat majority. Simply being the incumbent would give him a huge advantage.
    If he goes for it now, he will hold the economic bomb when it goes off
    He's gone to hold the economic bomb whether he is PM or Chancellor. If he's PM, he can blame the chancellor for the disasters in a way he can't if he's someone else's Chancellor.

    And after today - Boris isn't long for PM.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,869
    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    Good header, Richard. I don’t believe for a moment that disliking the direction of travel on Covid was the real reason for Frost’s resignation. Rather he realised that he wasn’t going to be able to maintain the bluster any longer.

    He has said that pretty clearly and unambiguously. I'd have guessed otherwise, but as he's said it so clearly I think I have to believe what he says.
    Many cabinet ministers have said one thing is the reason for their resignation when it's actually another. In any case, normally there's more than one reason. As we saw today, the Cabinet have blocked any restrictions. Moreover, Frost's departure seems to have been agreed some time ago, when this wasn't on the horizon.

    What people say and what they actually do are two different things.
    Give me 'many' examples then.
    Arthur Balfour
    Winston Churchill
    Reginald McKenna
    Bonar Law (1921)
    Robert Cecil
    Lord Salisbury
    Peter Thorneycroft
    Frank Soskice
    Lord Carrington
    Ian Gilmour
    Michael Heseltine
    Nigel Lawson
    Geoffrey Howe
    John Redwood
    Frank Field
    James Purnell

    And that's without even thinking too much. Ostensibly all these people resigned for one reason, but in reality it was a multiplicity of reasons or a different reason from the one given - for example Purnell said it was to forestall a Tory general election victory but in fact he was just frustrated with the direction of the government and the way it was being mismanaged.
    You may believe that their reasons weren't as stated, but I doubt you have much evidence as such.

    There's not a chance in hell that Geoffrey Howe resigned for other than the stated reasons for example.
    Which one of the reasons? The reasons he gave at the time or the rather more complex picture he revealed in his autobiography?
    The reasons he gave to the house.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,124
    ydoethur said:

    A very well written and persuasive header. I can't think of anything Richard has missed, except perhaps just that Truss seems unbelievably fake.

    I think her other weakness is she's Continuity Johnson. All of his strengths, such as they are, all of his flaws, which are painfully apparent. If Johnson is forced out that's not going to help her.
    This. It's replacing one charlatan by another. But Liz Truss is at the top of the Conservative Home leader board because she tells Conservative Party members and supporters what they like to hear. I am the last person anyone should consult on what goes in the CP, but I admit a Truss win seems to me to be very likely.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,985
    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    Good header, Richard. I don’t believe for a moment that disliking the direction of travel on Covid was the real reason for Frost’s resignation. Rather he realised that he wasn’t going to be able to maintain the bluster any longer.

    He has said that pretty clearly and unambiguously. I'd have guessed otherwise, but as he's said it so clearly I think I have to believe what he says.
    Many cabinet ministers have said one thing is the reason for their resignation when it's actually another. In any case, normally there's more than one reason. As we saw today, the Cabinet have blocked any restrictions. Moreover, Frost's departure seems to have been agreed some time ago, when this wasn't on the horizon.

    What people say and what they actually do are two different things.
    Give me 'many' examples then.
    Arthur Balfour
    Winston Churchill
    Reginald McKenna
    Bonar Law (1921)
    Robert Cecil
    Lord Salisbury
    Peter Thorneycroft
    Frank Soskice
    Lord Carrington
    Ian Gilmour
    Michael Heseltine
    Nigel Lawson
    Geoffrey Howe
    John Redwood
    Frank Field
    James Purnell

    And that's without even thinking too much. Ostensibly all these people resigned for one reason, but in reality it was a multiplicity of reasons or a different reason from the one given - for example Purnell said it was to forestall a Tory general election victory but in fact he was just frustrated with the direction of the government and the way it was being mismanaged.
    You may believe that their reasons weren't as stated, but I doubt you have much evidence as such.

    There's not a chance in hell that Geoffrey Howe resigned for other than the stated reasons for example.
    Which one of the reasons? The reasons he gave at the time or the rather more complex picture he revealed in his autobiography?
    The reasons he gave to the house.
    Which as he admitted in his autobiography (which I highly recommend) were incomplete. Certainly Europe was an issue, but he was also frustrated by Thatcher's increasingly erratic behaviour, the way she had treated him personally, and the by passing of Cabinet, especially as he no longer had a department of his own to head leaving him with pretty well no policy influence at all, so he thought he might as well quit and leave the mess behind him.

    Conflict of Loyalty. One of the best political memoirs I've ever read. Worth a read if you've never come across it.

    Anyway, my Covid booster yesterday has left me rather tired and I have an early start tomorrow. So have a great evening.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,719
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Thanks, Richard, really good piece. She's a lay alright. Set up to fail - in the crazies eyes - on NI. And in any case she's rather vacuous. Parties tend to veer away from what they've just had so I expect BJ's replacement, when it happens, to be a fairly solid thinker.

    Would one describe a man as being "vacuous"?
    Certainly described Sean Bailey and his campaign for the mayoralty.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,869
    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    Good header, Richard. I don’t believe for a moment that disliking the direction of travel on Covid was the real reason for Frost’s resignation. Rather he realised that he wasn’t going to be able to maintain the bluster any longer.

    He has said that pretty clearly and unambiguously. I'd have guessed otherwise, but as he's said it so clearly I think I have to believe what he says.
    Many cabinet ministers have said one thing is the reason for their resignation when it's actually another. In any case, normally there's more than one reason. As we saw today, the Cabinet have blocked any restrictions. Moreover, Frost's departure seems to have been agreed some time ago, when this wasn't on the horizon.

    What people say and what they actually do are two different things.
    Give me 'many' examples then.
    Arthur Balfour
    Winston Churchill
    Reginald McKenna
    Bonar Law (1921)
    Robert Cecil
    Lord Salisbury
    Peter Thorneycroft
    Frank Soskice
    Lord Carrington
    Ian Gilmour
    Michael Heseltine
    Nigel Lawson
    Geoffrey Howe
    John Redwood
    Frank Field
    James Purnell

    And that's without even thinking too much. Ostensibly all these people resigned for one reason, but in reality it was a multiplicity of reasons or a different reason from the one given - for example Purnell said it was to forestall a Tory general election victory but in fact he was just frustrated with the direction of the government and the way it was being mismanaged.
    You may believe that their reasons weren't as stated, but I doubt you have much evidence as such.

    There's not a chance in hell that Geoffrey Howe resigned for other than the stated reasons for example.
    Which one of the reasons? The reasons he gave at the time or the rather more complex picture he revealed in his autobiography?
    The reasons he gave to the house.
    Which as he admitted in his autobiography (which I highly recommend) were incomplete. Certainly Europe was an issue, but he was also frustrated by Thatcher's increasingly erratic behaviour, the way she had treated him personally, and the by passing of Cabinet, especially as he no longer had a department of his own to head leaving him with pretty well no policy influence at all, so he thought he might as well quit and leave the mess behind him.

    Conflict of Loyalty. One of the best political memoirs I've ever read. Worth a read if you've never come across it.

    Anyway, my Covid booster yesterday has left me rather tired and I have an early start tomorrow. So have a great evening.
    A poor wicket that you're batting on, but hey hope the booster fog leaves you, and you too, have a nice evening.
  • https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1473006797917245455

    NEW: Matt Hancock is in the cheese and wine photo from the Downing Street garden, Telegraph can reveal.

    Hadn't he just given the press conference?
    Yep.

    That leadership bid looking less likely tonight then.
  • TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Thanks, Richard, really good piece. She's a lay alright. Set up to fail - in the crazies eyes - on NI. And in any case she's rather vacuous. Parties tend to veer away from what they've just had so I expect BJ's replacement, when it happens, to be a fairly solid thinker.

    Would one describe a man as being "vacuous"?
    Yes. I have been calling Raab vacuous for a few years.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 3,884
    MaxPB said:

    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.
    No this is utterly wrong. If you have a whole range of possible scenarios and you only present the ones that result in action then you are taking the responsibility for decision making away from the politicians and giving it to the unelected scientists. By removing the scenarios where nothing needs to be done you are forcing the politicians into a position where they either do something - even if it is probably unnecessary - or they can be accused of ignoring the evidence as it was presented to them. It is absolutely vital that the advisors present all possible scenarios and weigh them for the decision makers.
    It is not utterly wrong. It is presenting the scenarios that need stuff doing about them.

    "Present all possible scenarios"

    And how many different scenarios is that? Ten? a hundred? A thousand?

    The scientists are saying: "these are the sh*t scenarios. These are the ones that, if they occur, we will need to take actions on." Presenting scenarios that need no action is pointless - because there are no actions required. It doesn't mean the politicians are being told these will happen, or that these are the only scenarios. They are the ones to worry about.

    It's not that they're saying these are the only scenarios that may happen; or the probabilities of them happening; they're the ones the politicians really need to worry about.

    It's simple stuff.
    FPT

    The problem is that right now people think the most optomistic scenario from SAGE is for a peak of 3000 admissions a day, as that is their lowest model. Except other models suggest this is NOT the lowest possible. The narrative is running that if we do nothing, we will definitely see a minimum of 3000 admissions a day. It’s dishonest.
    I’m not blaming the scientists entirely here, I want to know what instructions they are getting.
    Then I'd blame those telling the people that this is the issue without a fair grasp on what SAGE and SPI-M-O are doing, or their terms of reference, or the specifics of decision making during a period of ignorance but with the possibility of a Never Event (as described by TimT).

    That would be the attention-seekers of the media and some Twitter commentators. Who grab stuff, skim it for an attention-grabbing takeaway line, and plaster it everywhere they can.
    Why use knowingly incorrect data points for model inputs, though? However you cut it that's just bad practice and now they've managed to lose their last ounce of credibility with the politicians. The fault lies with whoever is asking for them to do that, sure, but also with them for not having the professional integrity to flag that up as bad practice. They're being asked to put their finger on the scale so someone can use their findings to push the lockdown decision making process forwards. As it turned out Cabinet took exception to being presented data that has no basis in reality.
    Which knowingly incorrect parameters? Looking at the Warwick paper, they had several possible Ve figures against potential levels of immune escape and booster effectiveness (high to low), and it was written and updated on the 11th of December.

    TimT explained the parameters of the decision-making process in conditions of high uncertainty and with credible possibilities of a Never Event, and it follows exactly that process.

    So it could either be that process, with the criteria of a Never Event as laid down over a decade ago in the last Labour Government, or its a cabal of evil scientists or a secret civil servant with a fetish for lockdowns who’s not been sprung yet.

    I hate lockdowns. I personally incline to the view that there will not be a need for them. But I agree that the probabilities involved are still unclear, and that they should ensure that they have the options on the table, together with what they would or would not do, as well as the costs for them, all clearly laid out.

    And, of course, as Paul Mainwood drily observed a few days ago: if we do want to adjust for a variable severity, we can simply do the less-than-arcane procedure of “multiply by a constant” against the outcomes.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 41,069
    Not sure about Truss but a result with the EU, almost any result at this point, would put her in a very strong position.

    The EU frankly have a long list of more important things to worry about as do we. Taking the abrasiveness of Frost out of the equation it is just possible that a deal will be easier than currently thought, just like those trade deals proved to be.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,612
    A report by the BBC

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59680707

    about the serious failings in social and housing care of Brighton and Hove Council remarkably fails to mention which party runs it.

    I wonder if the heartless Tories would have been treated in the same way?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 27,139
    Continuing on from the previous topic:

    There's another area I know of where this occurs. In engineering, you often have to consider what happens if something fails. Say you have a widget in a substation that, if it fails, will blow out power to a city block, and will damage the substation so much that it will require three days to be repaired. The good scenarios are that it will never fail, and everything will be hunky-dory. You do not know whether it will fail, or when - but it might. And the cost of failure is rather large.

    You therefore have to make a decision: do you redesign the widget to make it less likely to fail (difficult, if you are finding it hard to quantify how often it may fail), or do you put in a layer of redundancy (e.g. fire suppression, or a backup system) so that, if it does fail, it does not damage the substation and can be easily and quickly replaced?

    You consider the worst-case reasonable scenarios, because they are the ones that hurt. Now, the cost of adding that layer of redundancy might be judged as greater than the cost of a rare failure - but at least you can make that judgement.

    (This then leads onto things like the swiss-cheese model of accident causations, where layers of redundancy fail in turn, but that's irrelevant for this.)
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,869

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Thanks, Richard, really good piece. She's a lay alright. Set up to fail - in the crazies eyes - on NI. And in any case she's rather vacuous. Parties tend to veer away from what they've just had so I expect BJ's replacement, when it happens, to be a fairly solid thinker.

    Would one describe a man as being "vacuous"?
    Yes. I have been calling Raab vacuous for a few years.
    He is one of these politicians that really should do better.

    Ed Balls is the best example - apparently clever on economic stuff, and yet when tested seems like Diane Abbot.
  • Away from the covid chatter...


    Jim Pickard
    @PickardJE
    ·
    2h
    Breaking:

    Unite the Union general secretary Sharon Graham has commissioned QC-led inquiry into the Birmingham hotel & conference centre built under previous leadership

    Graham says recent expert valuation has estimated its value as "considerably lower than the costs incurred"
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 1,617
    DavidL said:

    Saw another big march in Newcastle yesterday. The anti vaxxers are irrational bordering on mad but they are also seriously angry. Lots of posters with Boriss with the s’s in a predictable style.

    I am either incredibly unlucky or these marches are very common. It’s a real problem for any defence system based on boosters.

    Engaging with them is hard but treating them with contempt as or the Saj is not productive either.

    The hardcore conspiracists are actually small in number. It's the hesitant and scared, whom the anti-vaxxers may or may not influence, who are the real problem. The Government and the medics have both been trying to talk them round for a year now, and it's still not working. It's no wonder that they're becoming frustrated with the refusers - a great many of us in the country are - and I wouldn't be at all surprised if discussions hadn't gone on in the background about compulsion, although the Tory libertarians are too numerous and too emboldened for moves in that direction to be likely for now.

    That said, if Omicron doesn't end the pandemic through being too transmissible to stop, then expect complaints about refusers to grow louder and more strident. If the idea takes hold that they are the major obstacle to a return to normality - and especially if we have any further variant waves in which hospital ICUs are full of the unvaccinated - then moves to attempt to force them into submission may become very popular, very quickly.
  • Just heard one side of the extended Urquhart family have all got COVID, including those triple jabbed. Again symptoms from very mild to one pretty sick.

    It does seem with Omicron, if one gets it, everybody close to them is highly likely to get it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 33,021

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Thanks, Richard, really good piece. She's a lay alright. Set up to fail - in the crazies eyes - on NI. And in any case she's rather vacuous. Parties tend to veer away from what they've just had so I expect BJ's replacement, when it happens, to be a fairly solid thinker.

    Would one describe a man as being "vacuous"?
    Certainly described Sean Bailey and his campaign for the mayoralty.
    Strikes me as more in the ditzy, air-head category of men belittling women
  • CookieCookie Posts: 5,153
    This is a nice article:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/20/risk-not-spending-christmas-elderly-parents/

    "We are going to [my parents' in] Yorkshire, this year, because it’s time to embrace life, not death; to acknowledge that in an uncertain world, there will always be risk, and doubt, and danger; that hiding away from your loved ones, as another year breathes its last and terrified experts warn of yet another surge, is no life at all, only death postponed."
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 5,083

    Just heard one side of the extended Urquhart family have all got COVID, including those triple jabbed. Again symptoms from very mild to one pretty sick.

    It does seem with Omicron, if one gets it, everybody close to them is highly likely to get it.

    Been the case for my brother and his kids. None of them too bad.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,719
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Thanks, Richard, really good piece. She's a lay alright. Set up to fail - in the crazies eyes - on NI. And in any case she's rather vacuous. Parties tend to veer away from what they've just had so I expect BJ's replacement, when it happens, to be a fairly solid thinker.

    Would one describe a man as being "vacuous"?
    Certainly described Sean Bailey and his campaign for the mayoralty.
    Strikes me as more in the ditzy, air-head category of men belittling women
    Ditzy and airhead are certainly gendered terms. I’m much less convinced about vacuous.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 41,069

    Just heard one side of the extended Urquhart family have all got COVID, including those triple jabbed. Again symptoms from very mild to one pretty sick.

    It does seem with Omicron, if one gets it, everybody close to them is highly likely to get it.

    Yes. My daughter caught Delta. Living in the same house eating together and spending time with each other, none of the rest of us ever caught it. With Omicron that just wouldn’t happen.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,612
    A glance at the tweet/picture, which combine a message urbi et orbi with an appearance of monarchical universal jurisdiction suggest that Richard Nabavi may well be right.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,321

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Thanks, Richard, really good piece. She's a lay alright. Set up to fail - in the crazies eyes - on NI. And in any case she's rather vacuous. Parties tend to veer away from what they've just had so I expect BJ's replacement, when it happens, to be a fairly solid thinker.

    Would one describe a man as being "vacuous"?
    Certainly described Sean Bailey and his campaign for the mayoralty.
    Strikes me as more in the ditzy, air-head category of men belittling women
    Ditzy and airhead are certainly gendered terms. I’m much less convinced about vacuous.
    Which of the cabinet aren't vacuous? Gove I suppose.
  • Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Thanks, Richard, really good piece. She's a lay alright. Set up to fail - in the crazies eyes - on NI. And in any case she's rather vacuous. Parties tend to veer away from what they've just had so I expect BJ's replacement, when it happens, to be a fairly solid thinker.

    Would one describe a man as being "vacuous"?
    Yes. I have been calling Raab vacuous for a few years.
    He is one of these politicians that really should do better.

    Ed Balls is the best example - apparently clever on economic stuff, and yet when tested seems like Diane Abbot.
    Maybe Balls is a better politician when not in Parliament? :wink: Hazel Blears was another one who never failed to disappoint. I never once thought that she believed a single word she was uttering - she seemed to follow the party line with an HYFUDian dedication that was impressive in its own way, but failed to convince.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 17,673
    Whatever happened to that Government newspaper wrap around?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 33,021

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Thanks, Richard, really good piece. She's a lay alright. Set up to fail - in the crazies eyes - on NI. And in any case she's rather vacuous. Parties tend to veer away from what they've just had so I expect BJ's replacement, when it happens, to be a fairly solid thinker.

    Would one describe a man as being "vacuous"?
    Certainly described Sean Bailey and his campaign for the mayoralty.
    Strikes me as more in the ditzy, air-head category of men belittling women
    Ditzy and airhead are certainly gendered terms. I’m much less convinced about vacuous.
    Hence why I asked the collective wisdom of PB.
  • Cookie said:

    This is a nice article:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/20/risk-not-spending-christmas-elderly-parents/

    "We are going to [my parents' in] Yorkshire, this year, because it’s time to embrace life, not death; to acknowledge that in an uncertain world, there will always be risk, and doubt, and danger; that hiding away from your loved ones, as another year breathes its last and terrified experts warn of yet another surge, is no life at all, only death postponed."

    Outstanding piece. Even quoting Larkin. Way to go.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 33,021
    On topic typically great article.

    But shit-show as it is Boris did get Brexit done.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,869

    Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Thanks, Richard, really good piece. She's a lay alright. Set up to fail - in the crazies eyes - on NI. And in any case she's rather vacuous. Parties tend to veer away from what they've just had so I expect BJ's replacement, when it happens, to be a fairly solid thinker.

    Would one describe a man as being "vacuous"?
    Yes. I have been calling Raab vacuous for a few years.
    He is one of these politicians that really should do better.

    Ed Balls is the best example - apparently clever on economic stuff, and yet when tested seems like Diane Abbot.
    Maybe Balls is a better politician when not in Parliament? :wink: Hazel Blears was another one who never failed to disappoint. I never once thought that she believed a single word she was uttering - she seemed to follow the party line with an HYFUDian dedication that was impressive in its own way, but failed to convince.
    Oh yes - Balls is far better out of parliment. I think he's found himself to be a somewhat left Tory. That's how he sounds anyway these days - Ken Clarke-ish.

    Mrs Balls owns the trousers though.

  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 2,706
    Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Thanks, Richard, really good piece. She's a lay alright. Set up to fail - in the crazies eyes - on NI. And in any case she's rather vacuous. Parties tend to veer away from what they've just had so I expect BJ's replacement, when it happens, to be a fairly solid thinker.

    Would one describe a man as being "vacuous"?
    Yes. I have been calling Raab vacuous for a few years.
    He is one of these politicians that really should do better.

    Ed Balls is the best example - apparently clever on economic stuff, and yet when tested seems like Diane Abbot.
    No one who likes Herbert Howells as much as Ed Balls does can be called vacuous.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Thanks, Richard, really good piece. She's a lay alright. Set up to fail - in the crazies eyes - on NI. And in any case she's rather vacuous. Parties tend to veer away from what they've just had so I expect BJ's replacement, when it happens, to be a fairly solid thinker.

    Would one describe a man as being "vacuous"?
    Certainly described Sean Bailey and his campaign for the mayoralty.
    Strikes me as more in the ditzy, air-head category of men belittling women
    Ditzy and airhead are certainly gendered terms. I’m much less convinced about vacuous.
    I shall just point out that some private pilots refer to being "airheaded" as a compliment as only airheads can be trusted with certain tasks relating to handling, moving or flying aircraft.
  • Whatever happened to that Government newspaper wrap around?

    My Guardian had a wrap around: get yer boosters.
  • Whatever happened to that Government newspaper wrap around?

    My Guardian had a wrap around: get yer boosters.
    Solid propellant or cryogenic?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 27,139
    The other day, I mentioned an anti-vaxxer I know from school. This is his latest missive:

    "Dr Robert Malone, inventor of MRNA and DNA vaccines, tell people NOT to vaccinate their children with the Covid-19 vaccine for at least 5 years, until the research and testing has been done:"

    Followed by a link to a TikTok video.

    Facebook have added a 'Covid vaccines work' banner underneath the post.

    From my (limited) knowledge, there's a fair bit wrong in it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,582
    edited December 2021

    The other day, I mentioned an anti-vaxxer I know from school. This is his latest missive:

    "Dr Robert Malone, inventor of MRNA and DNA vaccines, tell people NOT to vaccinate their children with the Covid-19 vaccine for at least 5 years, until the research and testing has been done:"

    Followed by a link to a TikTok video.

    Facebook have added a 'Covid vaccines work' banner underneath the post.

    From my (limited) knowledge, there's a fair bit wrong in it.

    That guy has been the go to person for antivaxxers for ages.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 6,869

    Omnium said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Thanks, Richard, really good piece. She's a lay alright. Set up to fail - in the crazies eyes - on NI. And in any case she's rather vacuous. Parties tend to veer away from what they've just had so I expect BJ's replacement, when it happens, to be a fairly solid thinker.

    Would one describe a man as being "vacuous"?
    Yes. I have been calling Raab vacuous for a few years.
    He is one of these politicians that really should do better.

    Ed Balls is the best example - apparently clever on economic stuff, and yet when tested seems like Diane Abbot.
    No one who likes Herbert Howells as much as Ed Balls does can be called vacuous.
    Nobody described him as such.
This discussion has been closed.