Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage? Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?
If he had stayed with Marina, he wouldn't have had to fork out for an expensive divorce settlement. He would have a high earning wife, plus I can't see Marina as the type to enthuse about gold wallpaper. His kids would all be grown up and there would be no crying babies at night to distract him. You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at the way Boris has brought problems on himself.
I’m not sure that staying with Marina was an option he had available to him.
Carrie just has to make sure she times the divorce correctly, after the book deal has been signed and the speaking tour booked.
Can't Boris rejoin the EU and then lead the campaign to quit it again? He desperately needs something to revive the old magic.
In the good (bad) old days he'd have just started a war. Can he persuade Spain to annex Gibraltar? Even a decent French blockade of the Channel Islands could work if Johnson can break it with a Berlin-style airlift.
Edit: Of course, ideally you need to do the war/airlift competently, which could be a problem. Losing it would probably not be a vote winner...
Airlift wouldn't do much good. Macron only need flip the leccy off, it seems, unless there are power stations on the CIs.
Good point. Airlift of a really long extension lead?
(None of the existing interconnectors seem to go that near the CIs, which makes sense, I guess - not the shortest crossing point - although there is a planned one via Alderney, which could pesumably be linked to the ohte islands too and give a choice between French and UK leccy)
Presumably this would be a casus belli for us to retake Normandy. That is, of course, if we could spare the tanks from the Scottish front.
I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.
It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealings with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?
Also quite an achievement to trash your ratings during the pandemic; as I understand it most leaders have had a boost with a bit of subsequent up and down. Of course people like Trump and Bolsonaro are examples who have really gone down the toilet. I'm sure no comparisons should be made..
The last time the Cons were polling badly was winter last year - apparently people don't like it when there is a raging pandemic and short days. So there is scope for recovery yet.
Not impossible I guess but I think 'the one rule for them' stuff has real, lasting impact, particularly when there are photos & video to stick in the memory.
This is the first time I recall the line being used.
Scottish Tories must regret opening their big fat gobs. A little contrition is in order.
TBF they've sort of made it clear that they disapprove of the same sort of thing in HMG. Which rather negates their single mission of utter deference to London.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Yes, if I am advising a research institution, a hospital system or a laboratory system on creating a risk management system, you systematically model all planned operations with process flow maps, create job hazard identification forms for each process, identify the harms that can result from those hazards and the methods of mitigation. For those where no mitigation is available, you redesign the process as necessary, and so on.
That is what you do if you are in a planning situation. When you are in an emergency response situation, things are different.
Different risk management approaches are required for different circumstances. Two key parameters that are involved in deciding which methods to use are:
(1) quality of data (which in this case leads us to the adaptive risk management methods appropriate to the zone of ignorance) (2) the time available to make the decision. In most oil exploration decisions, you have time. In managing a fast moving situation, like Sully Sullenberger deciding where to try to land his plane or the government trying to decide day to day what to do against the pandemic, you won't always have time. The shorter the time available before catastrophic consequence, the less you have the luxury of considering all the options and evaluating for the best. You focus on what you can do that can positively impact outcomes.
Commercial pilots have a very useful decision-making model on which decision-making model to apply in various situations, depending on issues such as time available, seriousness of consequence, level of knowledge, presence of existing rules, other options available, and whether a completely new approach needs to be developed.
There is no one-size fits all.
I thought pilots have a very simple crisis response process: aviate, navigate, communicate.
Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage? Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?
If he had stayed with Marina, he wouldn't have had to fork out for an expensive divorce settlement. He would have a high earning wife, plus I can't see Marina as the type to enthuse about gold wallpaper. His kids would all be grown up and there would be no crying babies at night to distract him. You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at the way Boris has brought problems on himself.
I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.
It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealings with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?
Also quite an achievement to trash your ratings during the pandemic; as I understand it most leaders have had a boost with a bit of subsequent up and down. Of course people like Trump and Bolsonaro are examples who have really gone down the toilet. I'm sure no comparisons should be made..
The last time the Cons were polling badly was winter last year - apparently people don't like it when there is a raging pandemic and short days. So there is scope for recovery yet.
Not impossible I guess but I think 'the one rule for them' stuff has real, lasting impact, particularly when there are photos & video to stick in the memory.
This is the first time I recall the line being used.
Scottish Tories must regret opening their big fat gobs. A little contrition is in order.
TBF they've sort of made it clear that they disapprove of the same sort of thing in HMG. Which rather negates their single mission of utter deference to London.
What next, independence for the ScoTories?
They did a hell of a lot better at the ballot boxes when they were independent, pre-1965. Mind you, back then they were just rabid sectarians. DUP on speed.
Can't Boris rejoin the EU and then lead the campaign to quit it again? He desperately needs something to revive the old magic.
In the good (bad) old days he'd have just started a war. Can he persuade Spain to annex Gibraltar? Even a decent French blockade of the Channel Islands could work if Johnson can break it with a Berlin-style airlift.
Edit: Of course, ideally you need to do the war/airlift competently, which could be a problem. Losing it would probably not be a vote winner...
Airlift wouldn't do much good. Macron only need flip the leccy off, it seems, unless there are power stations on the CIs.
Good point. Airlift of a really long extension lead?
(None of the existing interconnectors seem to go that near the CIs, which makes sense, I guess - not the shortest crossing point - although there is a planned one via Alderney, which could pesumably be linked to the ohte islands too and give a choice between French and UK leccy)
Presumably this would be a casus belli for us to retake Normandy. That is, of course, if we could spare the tanks from the Scottish front.
St Helier the new Port Stanley.
Actually, at the rate at which MoD is scrapping tanks, there'll be minus 1 UK tank (i.e. not counting those at Bovington museum) at some point in a decade or two.
“Gas prices have surged to a fresh record high after Russia halted flows to Europe via a key pipeline.
“The amount of gas entering Germany’s Mallnow compressor station, where the Yamal-Europe pipeline terminates, dropped to zero early on Tuesday and Russian gas began flowing east towards Poland.
“The drop in supplies will force European countries to keep withdrawing supplies from their already depleted stockpiles.
“This is being compounded by freezing temperatures across the continent, which are driving up demand and inflating prices.
“Benchmark European prices jumped as much as 11pc, while the UK equivalent rose 10pc, with both hitting new all-time highs.”
This is going to be a massive story over the winter, as energy bills and petrol prices continue to go up.
It's going to be a massive story because Putin is preparing the ground to invade Ukraine, banking on using gas supplies to keep Europe quiet enough in response.
Time to chop up his pipe and stick it where the sun does not shine
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Yes, if I am advising a research institution, a hospital system or a laboratory system on creating a risk management system, you systematically model all planned operations with process flow maps, create job hazard identification forms for each process, identify the harms that can result from those hazards and the methods of mitigation. For those where no mitigation is available, you redesign the process as necessary, and so on.
That is what you do if you are in a planning situation. When you are in an emergency response situation, things are different.
Different risk management approaches are required for different circumstances. Two key parameters that are involved in deciding which methods to use are:
(1) quality of data (which in this case leads us to the adaptive risk management methods appropriate to the zone of ignorance) (2) the time available to make the decision. In most oil exploration decisions, you have time. In managing a fast moving situation, like Sully Sullenberger deciding where to try to land his plane or the government trying to decide day to day what to do against the pandemic, you won't always have time. The shorter the time available before catastrophic consequence, the less you have the luxury of considering all the options and evaluating for the best. You focus on what you can do that can positively impact outcomes.
Commercial pilots have a very useful decision-making model on which decision-making model to apply in various situations, depending on issues such as time available, seriousness of consequence, level of knowledge, presence of existing rules, other options available, and whether a completely new approach needs to be developed.
There is no one-size fits all.
Hermann Kahn wrote some excellent stuff on the planning by scenario presentation.
He mentioned his experiences with people concentrating on the scenarios which required more and dramatic actions - that they liked/felt appropriate. Doing nothing isn't sexy - military people seemed to grasp it's value, but politicians always wanted to do *something*
Apparently, technique that military planners would use, when dealing with politicians was to turn "do nothing" into a 1500 page "scenario plan" to match the other 1500 page plans.
Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage? Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?
If he had stayed with Marina, he wouldn't have had to fork out for an expensive divorce settlement. He would have a high earning wife, plus I can't see Marina as the type to enthuse about gold wallpaper. His kids would all be grown up and there would be no crying babies at night to distract him. You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at the way Boris has brought problems on himself.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Yes, if I am advising a research institution, a hospital system or a laboratory system on creating a risk management system, you systematically model all planned operations with process flow maps, create job hazard identification forms for each process, identify the harms that can result from those hazards and the methods of mitigation. For those where no mitigation is available, you redesign the process as necessary, and so on.
That is what you do if you are in a planning situation. When you are in an emergency response situation, things are different.
Different risk management approaches are required for different circumstances. Two key parameters that are involved in deciding which methods to use are:
(1) quality of data (which in this case leads us to the adaptive risk management methods appropriate to the zone of ignorance) (2) the time available to make the decision. In most oil exploration decisions, you have time. In managing a fast moving situation, like Sully Sullenberger deciding where to try to land his plane or the government trying to decide day to day what to do against the pandemic, you won't always have time. The shorter the time available before catastrophic consequence, the less you have the luxury of considering all the options and evaluating for the best. You focus on what you can do that can positively impact outcomes.
Commercial pilots have a very useful decision-making model on which decision-making model to apply in various situations, depending on issues such as time available, seriousness of consequence, level of knowledge, presence of existing rules, other options available, and whether a completely new approach needs to be developed.
There is no one-size fits all.
I thought pilots have a very simple crisis response process: aviate, navigate, communicate.
That works in a small plane flying solo, but it gets complicated very quickly if you’re dealing with a big plane with big problems.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Can't prove it without taking a deep dive - which I can't face with Christmas coming up - but my sense is that some people with strong anti-lockdown sentiments are being misled by a Fraser Nelson twitter thread, inc Fraser himself.
I would think the Sage/Govt process for Covid works in essence as follows: Outcomes for hospitalizations if we do nothing are projected, key variables being spread of cases and severity of disease, each of these outcomes with a probability, and this is used to decide if action is needed. If action IS needed, the mitigating impact of various measures is estimated and this is used to decide what to do. All then subject to the politics and the polls and the money.
Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage? Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?
My view is that Boris was a tool (well, still is, but you know…) to get us out of the EU. That’s what people wanted; that’s what he did. Attitudes to Boris beyond that were ambivalent in 2019 save that people quite liked his go-getting levelling up punchy optimism.
He got the first job done and that was the first point where he faced a crossroads. Could he adapt to now governing post-Brexit Britain and maintain that popular support? The answer is no. Covid came along and masked (no pun intended) his failures for a little while (people gave him a bit of a pass for the initial failures in covid response, unprecedented situation, etc etc). But now he’s been found out. He did the job he was elected to do, got Brexit over the line, but he can’t govern the country. Levelling up has floundered. Optimism is gone, replaced by green waffle (worthy ambition but not really what people expected) and covid doom.
Boris was perhaps always going to be found lacking eventually. He’s not an administrator or a leader. He’s a blunt force object and morally questionable individual who served his purpose and has shown he’s not adapted and is not up to the job of post-Brexit leadership. Perhaps to use a Churchill analogy to reference his political hero: he won us the war but we didn’t want him to govern us in the peace that followed thereafter.
I'd agree with all that apart from the bit about him being "morally questionable". I don't think there's any question about his morals.
Can't Boris rejoin the EU and then lead the campaign to quit it again? He desperately needs something to revive the old magic.
In the good (bad) old days he'd have just started a war. Can he persuade Spain to annex Gibraltar? Even a decent French blockade of the Channel Islands could work if Johnson can break it with a Berlin-style airlift.
Edit: Of course, ideally you need to do the war/airlift competently, which could be a problem. Losing it would probably not be a vote winner...
Airlift wouldn't do much good. Macron only need flip the leccy off, it seems, unless there are power stations on the CIs.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Yes, if I am advising a research institution, a hospital system or a laboratory system on creating a risk management system, you systematically model all planned operations with process flow maps, create job hazard identification forms for each process, identify the harms that can result from those hazards and the methods of mitigation. For those where no mitigation is available, you redesign the process as necessary, and so on.
That is what you do if you are in a planning situation. When you are in an emergency response situation, things are different.
Different risk management approaches are required for different circumstances. Two key parameters that are involved in deciding which methods to use are:
(1) quality of data (which in this case leads us to the adaptive risk management methods appropriate to the zone of ignorance) (2) the time available to make the decision. In most oil exploration decisions, you have time. In managing a fast moving situation, like Sully Sullenberger deciding where to try to land his plane or the government trying to decide day to day what to do against the pandemic, you won't always have time. The shorter the time available before catastrophic consequence, the less you have the luxury of considering all the options and evaluating for the best. You focus on what you can do that can positively impact outcomes.
Commercial pilots have a very useful decision-making model on which decision-making model to apply in various situations, depending on issues such as time available, seriousness of consequence, level of knowledge, presence of existing rules, other options available, and whether a completely new approach needs to be developed.
There is no one-size fits all.
Hermann Kahn wrote some excellent stuff on the planning by scenario presentation.
He mentioned his experiences with people concentrating on the scenarios which required more and dramatic actions - that they liked/felt appropriate. Doing nothing isn't sexy - military people seemed to grasp it's value, but politicians always wanted to do *something*
Apparently, technique that military planners would use, when dealing with politicians was to turn "do nothing" into a 1500 page "scenario plan" to match the other 1500 page plans.
I was actually just listening to a podcast about Churchill on my run. One of the criticisms of Churchill's handling of the military in WW2 was that he was always keen to be doing something, when the best thing might have been to wait, train and prepare. Apparently Monty was one of the first commanders to push back on Churchill about this.
Incidentally, another in the series had a half-hour interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger talking about Churchill. Surprisingly entertaining and interesting.
Public sector net borrowing (excluding public sector banks, PSNB ex) was estimated to have been £17.4 billion in November 2021; this was the second-highest November borrowing since monthly records began in 1993, £4.9 billion less than in November 2020.
The end of furlough doesn't appear to have helped much in terms of the public finances.
Can't Boris rejoin the EU and then lead the campaign to quit it again? He desperately needs something to revive the old magic.
In the good (bad) old days he'd have just started a war. Can he persuade Spain to annex Gibraltar? Even a decent French blockade of the Channel Islands could work if Johnson can break it with a Berlin-style airlift.
Edit: Of course, ideally you need to do the war/airlift competently, which could be a problem. Losing it would probably not be a vote winner...
Airlift wouldn't do much good. Macron only need flip the leccy off, it seems, unless there are power stations on the CIs.
“Gas prices have surged to a fresh record high after Russia halted flows to Europe via a key pipeline.
“The amount of gas entering Germany’s Mallnow compressor station, where the Yamal-Europe pipeline terminates, dropped to zero early on Tuesday and Russian gas began flowing east towards Poland.
“The drop in supplies will force European countries to keep withdrawing supplies from their already depleted stockpiles.
“This is being compounded by freezing temperatures across the continent, which are driving up demand and inflating prices.
“Benchmark European prices jumped as much as 11pc, while the UK equivalent rose 10pc, with both hitting new all-time highs.”
This is going to be a massive story over the winter, as energy bills and petrol prices continue to go up.
It's going to be a massive story because Putin is preparing the ground to invade Ukraine, banking on using gas supplies to keep Europe quiet enough in response.
Time to chop up his pipe and stick it where the sun does not shine
Yes, well, I'd agree with that. Whether Scholz will is another matter.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Can't prove it without taking a deep dive - which I can't face with Christmas coming up - but my sense is that some people with strong anti-lockdown sentiments are being misled by a Fraser Nelson twitter thread, inc Fraser himself.
I would think the Sage/Govt process for Covid works in essence as follows: Outcomes for hospitalizations if we do nothing are projected, key variables being spread of cases and severity of disease, each of these outcomes with a probability, and this is used to decide if action is needed. If action IS needed, the mitigating impact of various measures is estimated and this is used to decide what to do. All then subject to the politics and the polls and the money.
The issue is that the scenarios saying that action isn't needed weren't presented within the evidence. This is misleading.
“Gas prices have surged to a fresh record high after Russia halted flows to Europe via a key pipeline.
“The amount of gas entering Germany’s Mallnow compressor station, where the Yamal-Europe pipeline terminates, dropped to zero early on Tuesday and Russian gas began flowing east towards Poland.
“The drop in supplies will force European countries to keep withdrawing supplies from their already depleted stockpiles.
“This is being compounded by freezing temperatures across the continent, which are driving up demand and inflating prices.
“Benchmark European prices jumped as much as 11pc, while the UK equivalent rose 10pc, with both hitting new all-time highs.”
This is going to be a massive story over the winter, as energy bills and petrol prices continue to go up.
It's going to be a massive story because Putin is preparing the ground to invade Ukraine, banking on using gas supplies to keep Europe quiet enough in response.
Sadly, yes.
Ukraine has been given away, already. The real question is when the German East Politics types start suggesting that a "compromise on the Eastern NATO States is required".
Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage? Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?
If he had stayed with Marina, he wouldn't have had to fork out for an expensive divorce settlement. He would have a high earning wife, plus I can't see Marina as the type to enthuse about gold wallpaper. His kids would all be grown up and there would be no crying babies at night to distract him. You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at the way Boris has brought problems on himself.
Maybe he's in love.
Whatever 'in love' means.
That he got jumped on, couldn’t say no, his wife found out, and the next thing you know there’s a new family of four!
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Yes, if I am advising a research institution, a hospital system or a laboratory system on creating a risk management system, you systematically model all planned operations with process flow maps, create job hazard identification forms for each process, identify the harms that can result from those hazards and the methods of mitigation. For those where no mitigation is available, you redesign the process as necessary, and so on.
That is what you do if you are in a planning situation. When you are in an emergency response situation, things are different.
Different risk management approaches are required for different circumstances. Two key parameters that are involved in deciding which methods to use are:
(1) quality of data (which in this case leads us to the adaptive risk management methods appropriate to the zone of ignorance) (2) the time available to make the decision. In most oil exploration decisions, you have time. In managing a fast moving situation, like Sully Sullenberger deciding where to try to land his plane or the government trying to decide day to day what to do against the pandemic, you won't always have time. The shorter the time available before catastrophic consequence, the less you have the luxury of considering all the options and evaluating for the best. You focus on what you can do that can positively impact outcomes.
Commercial pilots have a very useful decision-making model on which decision-making model to apply in various situations, depending on issues such as time available, seriousness of consequence, level of knowledge, presence of existing rules, other options available, and whether a completely new approach needs to be developed.
There is no one-size fits all.
I thought pilots have a very simple crisis response process: aviate, navigate, communicate.
Works well when things go well. I am talking about the decision-making model for how to make decisions when that all breaks down.
If someone can tell me how to share a screen shot, I will share the model once I am done with the workshop I have to give now.
Just listened to Rishi announcing his 1 billion support package and he comes across so reassuring and competently
Come on conservative mps, put him in the top job
The Tory leadership election rules are a curse. This is a change that should have happened before the end of this year. May 2022 locals feel a long time off, and even then will followed by a lengthy leadership battle.
I tweeted yesterday; "It's really quite an impressive achievement to be a lame-duck PM when you're just two years into your premiership with a majority of 80 and with an underwhelming opposition.". Although I was being somewhat facetious, there is a serious underlying point here: In contrast to Theresa May, for example, who had appalling ratings at a time when she didn't have a majority and was being hounded by the destructive forces of the Ultras, Boris is a fairly-recent near-landslide winner with a large majority. He should easily have the power and political prestige to dominate his party and the body politic generally.
It turns out that this governing malarkey is damned difficult: even with a large majority you can collapse into utter shambles. Who could have predicted that a mendacious charlatan who has betrayed everyone he has had dealings with, and so commands zero personal loyalty, who can't be bothered to engage with the detail, and who has promised contradictory unicorns to every audience he's spoken to, can't hack it?
Also quite an achievement to trash your ratings during the pandemic; as I understand it most leaders have had a boost with a bit of subsequent up and down. Of course people like Trump and Bolsonaro are examples who have really gone down the toilet. I'm sure no comparisons should be made..
The last time the Cons were polling badly was winter last year - apparently people don't like it when there is a raging pandemic and short days. So there is scope for recovery yet.
Not impossible I guess but I think 'the one rule for them' stuff has real, lasting impact, particularly when there are photos & video to stick in the memory.
This is the first time I recall the line being used.
Scottish Tories must regret opening their big fat gobs. A little contrition is in order.
TBF they've sort of made it clear that they disapprove of the same sort of thing in HMG. Which rather negates their single mission of utter deference to London.
What next, independence for the ScoTories?
They did a hell of a lot better at the ballot boxes when they were independent, pre-1965. Mind you, back then they were just rabid sectarians. DUP on speed.
Oh, yes, so they were. With Labour the party of the RCs, certainly in the West Central belt.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Can't prove it without taking a deep dive - which I can't face with Christmas coming up - but my sense is that some people with strong anti-lockdown sentiments are being misled by a Fraser Nelson twitter thread, inc Fraser himself.
I would think the Sage/Govt process for Covid works in essence as follows: Outcomes for hospitalizations if we do nothing are projected, key variables being spread of cases and severity of disease, each of these outcomes with a probability, and this is used to decide if action is needed. If action IS needed, the mitigating impact of various measures is estimated and this is used to decide what to do. All then subject to the politics and the polls and the money.
Well you'd expect that to be the case. But the implication is that the bit about the 'probability of each case' is either missing or not based on the evidence we have. I don't know if that's actually the case.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Yes, if I am advising a research institution, a hospital system or a laboratory system on creating a risk management system, you systematically model all planned operations with process flow maps, create job hazard identification forms for each process, identify the harms that can result from those hazards and the methods of mitigation. For those where no mitigation is available, you redesign the process as necessary, and so on.
That is what you do if you are in a planning situation. When you are in an emergency response situation, things are different.
Different risk management approaches are required for different circumstances. Two key parameters that are involved in deciding which methods to use are:
(1) quality of data (which in this case leads us to the adaptive risk management methods appropriate to the zone of ignorance) (2) the time available to make the decision. In most oil exploration decisions, you have time. In managing a fast moving situation, like Sully Sullenberger deciding where to try to land his plane or the government trying to decide day to day what to do against the pandemic, you won't always have time. The shorter the time available before catastrophic consequence, the less you have the luxury of considering all the options and evaluating for the best. You focus on what you can do that can positively impact outcomes.
Commercial pilots have a very useful decision-making model on which decision-making model to apply in various situations, depending on issues such as time available, seriousness of consequence, level of knowledge, presence of existing rules, other options available, and whether a completely new approach needs to be developed.
There is no one-size fits all.
I thought pilots have a very simple crisis response process: aviate, navigate, communicate.
That works in a small plane flying solo, but it gets complicated very quickly if you’re dealing with a big plane with big problems.
" They had descended 30,000 ft (9,100 m) in under two and a half minutes while all onboard experienced g-forces as high as 5g."
"The wings were permanently bent upwards by 2 inches (5 cm), the inboard main landing gear lost two actuator doors, and the two inboard main gear struts were left dangling. Most affected was the tail, where large outer parts of the horizontal stabilizer had been ripped off. The entire left outboard elevator had been lost along with its actuator, which had been powered by the hydraulic system that ruptured and drained."
Just listened to Rishi announcing his 1 billion support package and he comes across so reassuring and competently
Come on conservative mps, put him in the top job
The Tory leadership election rules are a curse. This is a change that should have happened before the end of this year. May 2022 locals feel a long time off, and even then will followed by a lengthy leadership battle.
The early part of the new year will be very interesting
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Yes, if I am advising a research institution, a hospital system or a laboratory system on creating a risk management system, you systematically model all planned operations with process flow maps, create job hazard identification forms for each process, identify the harms that can result from those hazards and the methods of mitigation. For those where no mitigation is available, you redesign the process as necessary, and so on.
That is what you do if you are in a planning situation. When you are in an emergency response situation, things are different.
Different risk management approaches are required for different circumstances. Two key parameters that are involved in deciding which methods to use are:
(1) quality of data (which in this case leads us to the adaptive risk management methods appropriate to the zone of ignorance) (2) the time available to make the decision. In most oil exploration decisions, you have time. In managing a fast moving situation, like Sully Sullenberger deciding where to try to land his plane or the government trying to decide day to day what to do against the pandemic, you won't always have time. The shorter the time available before catastrophic consequence, the less you have the luxury of considering all the options and evaluating for the best. You focus on what you can do that can positively impact outcomes.
Commercial pilots have a very useful decision-making model on which decision-making model to apply in various situations, depending on issues such as time available, seriousness of consequence, level of knowledge, presence of existing rules, other options available, and whether a completely new approach needs to be developed.
There is no one-size fits all.
Hermann Kahn wrote some excellent stuff on the planning by scenario presentation.
He mentioned his experiences with people concentrating on the scenarios which required more and dramatic actions - that they liked/felt appropriate. Doing nothing isn't sexy - military people seemed to grasp it's value, but politicians always wanted to do *something*
Apparently, technique that military planners would use, when dealing with politicians was to turn "do nothing" into a 1500 page "scenario plan" to match the other 1500 page plans.
I was actually just listening to a podcast about Churchill on my run. One of the criticisms of Churchill's handling of the military in WW2 was that he was always keen to be doing something, when the best thing might have been to wait, train and prepare. Apparently Monty was one of the first commanders to push back on Churchill about this.
Incidentally, another in the series had a half-hour interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger talking about Churchill. Surprisingly entertaining and interesting.
The suggestions I've heard is that Churchill was great for getting things done, provided he had someone to say no to his wilder ideas. Hence the praise heaped on Alan Brooke....
An interesting What-If - Churchill follows his original impulse and goes to Gallipoli, personally? Can't see him allowing the sitting around that happened at the start....
Can't Boris rejoin the EU and then lead the campaign to quit it again? He desperately needs something to revive the old magic.
In the good (bad) old days he'd have just started a war. Can he persuade Spain to annex Gibraltar? Even a decent French blockade of the Channel Islands could work if Johnson can break it with a Berlin-style airlift.
Edit: Of course, ideally you need to do the war/airlift competently, which could be a problem. Losing it would probably not be a vote winner...
Airlift wouldn't do much good. Macron only need flip the leccy off, it seems, unless there are power stations on the CIs.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Can't prove it without taking a deep dive - which I can't face with Christmas coming up - but my sense is that some people with strong anti-lockdown sentiments are being misled by a Fraser Nelson twitter thread, inc Fraser himself.
I would think the Sage/Govt process for Covid works in essence as follows: Outcomes for hospitalizations if we do nothing are projected, key variables being spread of cases and severity of disease, each of these outcomes with a probability, and this is used to decide if action is needed. If action IS needed, the mitigating impact of various measures is estimated and this is used to decide what to do. All then subject to the politics and the polls and the money.
The issue is that the scenarios saying that action isn't needed weren't presented within the evidence. This is misleading.
I'm not going to repeat all of my previous post, but that definitely is not what he said. You haven't understood the modelling, the evidence presented, or the Twitter thread you're basing all this on.
Is it just coincidence that the downturn in Boris's approval seems to be around the same time as his marriage? Or has he got his work/life balance wrong, affecting his political judgement?
I think there's a bit of Lady Macbeth, or even Adam and Eve, mythologising about Carrie. It strikes me as having some weird, sexist undertones. Nobody looked at Theresa May's many flaws and said, "that'd be the malign and corrupting influence of Phil".
Does she have views of her own that aren't wholly sensible? Probably. Does she have expensive tastes? Quite possibly. Are some aides jealous of her access to the PM? No doubt at all about it.
But Boris Johnson isn't being led astray by her - he is basically just the same prick he's always been.
Can't Boris rejoin the EU and then lead the campaign to quit it again? He desperately needs something to revive the old magic.
In the good (bad) old days he'd have just started a war. Can he persuade Spain to annex Gibraltar? Even a decent French blockade of the Channel Islands could work if Johnson can break it with a Berlin-style airlift.
Edit: Of course, ideally you need to do the war/airlift competently, which could be a problem. Losing it would probably not be a vote winner...
Airlift wouldn't do much good. Macron only need flip the leccy off, it seems, unless there are power stations on the CIs.
At least if the dreaded Covid hits me now, I can still say I've done the equivalent of one run a day this year...
Nice. I assume that means more than one run on some days. Any particular reason for that?
I prefer to do one long run and get it over with. But I did do a handful of multiple days.
On one day I did three runs. I did a ten-miler in the dark one Sunday this autumn, then got home for breakfast. Mrs J was feeling unwell, so I did the junior Parkrun with the little 'un. Whilst there, I met Mrs J's friend. They were meant to be running together, and she asked me to run instead. So I did another four miles after the Parkrun with her. Three runs in a morning: 10 miles, 1.2 miles, and 4 miles.
But I didn't count the park run in my official stats. It was too short...
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Yes, if I am advising a research institution, a hospital system or a laboratory system on creating a risk management system, you systematically model all planned operations with process flow maps, create job hazard identification forms for each process, identify the harms that can result from those hazards and the methods of mitigation. For those where no mitigation is available, you redesign the process as necessary, and so on.
That is what you do if you are in a planning situation. When you are in an emergency response situation, things are different.
Different risk management approaches are required for different circumstances. Two key parameters that are involved in deciding which methods to use are:
(1) quality of data (which in this case leads us to the adaptive risk management methods appropriate to the zone of ignorance) (2) the time available to make the decision. In most oil exploration decisions, you have time. In managing a fast moving situation, like Sully Sullenberger deciding where to try to land his plane or the government trying to decide day to day what to do against the pandemic, you won't always have time. The shorter the time available before catastrophic consequence, the less you have the luxury of considering all the options and evaluating for the best. You focus on what you can do that can positively impact outcomes.
Commercial pilots have a very useful decision-making model on which decision-making model to apply in various situations, depending on issues such as time available, seriousness of consequence, level of knowledge, presence of existing rules, other options available, and whether a completely new approach needs to be developed.
There is no one-size fits all.
I thought pilots have a very simple crisis response process: aviate, navigate, communicate.
That works in a small plane flying solo, but it gets complicated very quickly if you’re dealing with a big plane with big problems.
" They had descended 30,000 ft (9,100 m) in under two and a half minutes while all onboard experienced g-forces as high as 5g."
"The wings were permanently bent upwards by 2 inches (5 cm), the inboard main landing gear lost two actuator doors, and the two inboard main gear struts were left dangling. Most affected was the tail, where large outer parts of the horizontal stabilizer had been ripped off. The entire left outboard elevator had been lost along with its actuator, which had been powered by the hydraulic system that ruptured and drained."
That was quite ‘impressive’ from the crew, but at least they got down safely.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Yes, if I am advising a research institution, a hospital system or a laboratory system on creating a risk management system, you systematically model all planned operations with process flow maps, create job hazard identification forms for each process, identify the harms that can result from those hazards and the methods of mitigation. For those where no mitigation is available, you redesign the process as necessary, and so on.
That is what you do if you are in a planning situation. When you are in an emergency response situation, things are different.
Different risk management approaches are required for different circumstances. Two key parameters that are involved in deciding which methods to use are:
(1) quality of data (which in this case leads us to the adaptive risk management methods appropriate to the zone of ignorance) (2) the time available to make the decision. In most oil exploration decisions, you have time. In managing a fast moving situation, like Sully Sullenberger deciding where to try to land his plane or the government trying to decide day to day what to do against the pandemic, you won't always have time. The shorter the time available before catastrophic consequence, the less you have the luxury of considering all the options and evaluating for the best. You focus on what you can do that can positively impact outcomes.
Commercial pilots have a very useful decision-making model on which decision-making model to apply in various situations, depending on issues such as time available, seriousness of consequence, level of knowledge, presence of existing rules, other options available, and whether a completely new approach needs to be developed.
There is no one-size fits all.
I thought pilots have a very simple crisis response process: aviate, navigate, communicate.
That works in a small plane flying solo, but it gets complicated very quickly if you’re dealing with a big plane with big problems.
" They had descended 30,000 ft (9,100 m) in under two and a half minutes while all onboard experienced g-forces as high as 5g."
"The wings were permanently bent upwards by 2 inches (5 cm), the inboard main landing gear lost two actuator doors, and the two inboard main gear struts were left dangling. Most affected was the tail, where large outer parts of the horizontal stabilizer had been ripped off. The entire left outboard elevator had been lost along with its actuator, which had been powered by the hydraulic system that ruptured and drained."
Weren't there reports that it had reached Mach 1.0?
For some reason, reminds me of the story that an out of control Avro Vulcan got deep in to mach tuck - the pilot seriously considered rolling inverted to pull out of the dive!
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Yes, if I am advising a research institution, a hospital system or a laboratory system on creating a risk management system, you systematically model all planned operations with process flow maps, create job hazard identification forms for each process, identify the harms that can result from those hazards and the methods of mitigation. For those where no mitigation is available, you redesign the process as necessary, and so on.
That is what you do if you are in a planning situation. When you are in an emergency response situation, things are different.
Different risk management approaches are required for different circumstances. Two key parameters that are involved in deciding which methods to use are:
(1) quality of data (which in this case leads us to the adaptive risk management methods appropriate to the zone of ignorance) (2) the time available to make the decision. In most oil exploration decisions, you have time. In managing a fast moving situation, like Sully Sullenberger deciding where to try to land his plane or the government trying to decide day to day what to do against the pandemic, you won't always have time. The shorter the time available before catastrophic consequence, the less you have the luxury of considering all the options and evaluating for the best. You focus on what you can do that can positively impact outcomes.
Commercial pilots have a very useful decision-making model on which decision-making model to apply in various situations, depending on issues such as time available, seriousness of consequence, level of knowledge, presence of existing rules, other options available, and whether a completely new approach needs to be developed.
There is no one-size fits all.
I thought pilots have a very simple crisis response process: aviate, navigate, communicate.
Works well when things go well. I am talking about the decision-making model for how to make decisions when that all breaks down.
If someone can tell me how to share a screen shot, I will share the model once I am done with the workshop I have to give now.
Turn the screen shot into a jpeg or png. Upload to imugr (or simliar) - they will give you a link to post here, to embed the image using an img tag
@BetteMidler What #JoeManchin, who represents a population smaller than Brooklyn, has done to the rest of America, who wants to move forward, not backward, like his state, is horrible. He sold us out. He wants us all to be just like his state, West Virginia. Poor, illiterate and strung out. https://twitter.com/BetteMidler/status/1472955243935711236?s=20
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
According to Sage modelling (worst case scenario), the PM will soon become so unpopular he'll collapse inwardly and create a black hole that destroys all life on Earth.
Edited extra bit: this means we need an immediate lockdown, obviously.
Just listened to Rishi announcing his 1 billion support package and he comes across so reassuring and competently
Come on conservative mps, put him in the top job
He's a right-winger G, not a one-nation Tory. Surely not your cup of tea?
He has spent far more than 'One Nation' Ken Clarke did as chancellor and Clarke also cut income tax unlike Sunak.
For some, it seems 'One Nation' is basically just another way of saying 'pro EU'
That's a classic example of comparing apples with pears given the economic circumstances of Sunak's period as Chancellor. You cannot possibly form a view on how he'd have acted in 1993-97 (noting Clarke - much as I like him for other reasons - was an incredibly lucky Chancellor in terms of the prevailing economic climate).
Just listened to Rishi announcing his 1 billion support package and he comes across so reassuring and competently
Come on conservative mps, put him in the top job
The Tory leadership election rules are a curse. This is a change that should have happened before the end of this year. May 2022 locals feel a long time off, and even then will followed by a lengthy leadership battle.
The early part of the new year will be very interesting
At least the cabinet are now controlling Boris
That's what I worry about. Boris has always been a moderating influence on the Brittania Unchained cabal.
Tough new restrictions + huge new financial support
Begin tomorrow 23/12
Expected Intensive Care peak mid-January
Some details:
Everyone who can work from home must do so. Seated service only in restaurants, at one meter intervals. The government also advises against sports tournaments or camps for children and young people from 22 December to 16 January. Restrictions on retail: ten square meters per person. Booking is now mandatory on some trains.
A more extensive use of vaccine passes when more people receive the third dose.
At public gatherings and public events, no standing guests if more than 20 people, regardless of vaccination certificate. Without a vaccination certificate, stricter regulations. At events of more than 500 people, both vaccination certificates and distance between guests are required. Private events can be up to 50 people.
Financial support measures for culture of 120 million and 80 million for sports. Huge financial input into sick pay and time off to care for children etc
Just listened to Rishi announcing his 1 billion support package and he comes across so reassuring and competently
Come on conservative mps, put him in the top job
The Tory leadership election rules are a curse. This is a change that should have happened before the end of this year. May 2022 locals feel a long time off, and even then will followed by a lengthy leadership battle.
The early part of the new year will be very interesting
At least the cabinet are now controlling Boris
That's what I worry about. Boris has always been a moderating influence on the Brittania Unchained cabal.
I compared this new model Johnson earlier to the Tulchan Bishops of Scottish history - put in place to look good while other people (not bishops) pocketed the income from the see.
Edit: one hopes that the second part of the historical story is not an accurate analogy; but certainly the wider issue of privatising the public good is a major concern.
753k boosters, 36k first doses and 47k second doses done in England today. Up from 418k last week. I think we're very much at the capacity limit now which feels like ~950k per day nationally.
What's been good is the pick up in first and second doses, lots of low hanging fruit there we could have done earlier with a bit more of a publicity drive for vaccines. Also just about to hit 70% of England's population double vaxxed which is really good after such a slow ascent from 65%.
London people our rates are 83% single vaxxed and 75% double vaxxed for over 12s and 40% boosted for over 12s. That's way better than what most people think.
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most wealthy parents did not send their children to secondary moderns and do not send their children to comprehensives and certainly not comprehensives or academies which are any less than Outstanding. So the rich generally don't use comprehensives anyway while the bright but poor no longer have the opportunities grammars provided. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
753k boosters, 36k first doses and 47k second doses done in England today. Up from 418k last week. I think we're very much at the capacity limit now which feels like ~950k per day nationally.
What's been good is the pick up in first and second doses, lots of low hanging fruit there we could have done earlier with a bit more of a publicity drive for vaccines. Also just about to hit 70% of England's population double vaxxed which is really good after such a slow ascent from 65%.
What's important is to keep pushing the narrative of everybody urgently needing their booster. The worst thing would be after a good start that it drops away during Christmas and the continues at that low rate afterward.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Can't prove it without taking a deep dive - which I can't face with Christmas coming up - but my sense is that some people with strong anti-lockdown sentiments are being misled by a Fraser Nelson twitter thread, inc Fraser himself.
I would think the Sage/Govt process for Covid works in essence as follows: Outcomes for hospitalizations if we do nothing are projected, key variables being spread of cases and severity of disease, each of these outcomes with a probability, and this is used to decide if action is needed. If action IS needed, the mitigating impact of various measures is estimated and this is used to decide what to do. All then subject to the politics and the polls and the money.
The issue is that the scenarios saying that action isn't needed weren't presented within the evidence. This is misleading.
It's inherently wrapped into the process. Model what happens with hospitalizations if nothing is done, get a range of outcomes with probabilities, use this to decide whether to do something. If this isn't the gist of what is happening, and nothing in that Fraser Nelson stuff indicates otherwise, I'd be surprised.
Tough new restrictions + huge new financial support
Begin tomorrow 23/12
Expected Intensive Care peak mid-January
That's disturbing, as given the earlier laissez-alle approach you should have high levels of prior infection. What's driving this?
I’m really not qualified to say. I find it all a bit confusing.
Sweden certainly seems to be doing a lot better than Norway, whereas the opposite was true last year.
My gut feeling is that prior infection is really not helping much. We know several people that have had Covid19 twice.
None of us, to our knowledge, have had it.
I hope that continues. But I'm sorry to hear Sweden feels the need to lock down.
I’d hardly call it lockdown! Barely affects me at all. I’ll be working from home a lot again, which I really enjoy. Schools, high schools and universities all open as normal. Shops easy to use. Very few bother with masks. Roads much quieter. It’s lovely in some ways. You can almost feel nature recovering.
Tough new restrictions + huge new financial support
Begin tomorrow 23/12
Expected Intensive Care peak mid-January
That's disturbing, as given the earlier laissez-alle approach you should have high levels of prior infection. What's driving this?
I’m really not qualified to say. I find it all a bit confusing.
Sweden certainly seems to be doing a lot better than Norway, whereas the opposite was true last year.
My gut feeling is that prior infection is really not helping much. We know several people that have had Covid19 twice.
None of us, to our knowledge, have had it.
I hope that continues. But I'm sorry to hear Sweden feels the need to lock down.
I’d hardly call it lockdown! Barely affects me at all. I’ll be working from home a lot again, which I really enjoy. Schools, high schools and universities all open as normal. Shops easy to use. Very few bother with masks. Roads much quieter. It’s lovely in some ways. You can almost feel nature recovering.
Well, yes as described they're not very restrictive. The way you phrased it in your first post I assumed everyone would be tied up in their houses!
Tough new restrictions + huge new financial support
Begin tomorrow 23/12
Expected Intensive Care peak mid-January
Some details:
Everyone who can work from home must do so. Seated service only in restaurants, at one meter intervals. The government also advises against sports tournaments or camps for children and young people from 22 December to 16 January. Restrictions on retail: ten square meters per person. Booking is now mandatory on some trains.
A more extensive use of vaccine passes when more people receive the third dose.
At public gatherings and public events, no standing guests if more than 20 people, regardless of vaccination certificate. Without a vaccination certificate, stricter regulations. At events of more than 500 people, both vaccination certificates and distance between guests are required. Private events can be up to 50 people.
Financial support measures for culture of 120 million and 80 million for sports. Huge financial input into sick pay and time off to care for children etc
So no real measures for the deadly Alpha, Beta, & Delta, yet for the much milder Omicron all this.
NEW DATA: @IpsosMORI data shows that people are taking their own precautions, regardless of Gov’t decisions, ahead of Christmas: 9 in 10 are wearing masks, and nearly 6 in 10 not attending social gatherings, not going to pubs/restaurants and avoiding using public transport https://twitter.com/KellyIpsosMORI/status/1473264005137543177/photo/1
Just listened to Rishi announcing his 1 billion support package and he comes across so reassuring and competently
Come on conservative mps, put him in the top job
He's a right-winger G, not a one-nation Tory. Surely not your cup of tea?
He has spent far more than 'One Nation' Ken Clarke did as chancellor and Clarke also cut income tax unlike Sunak.
For some, it seems 'One Nation' is basically just another way of saying 'pro EU'
That's a classic example of comparing apples with pears given the economic circumstances of Sunak's period as Chancellor. You cannot possibly form a view on how he'd have acted in 1993-97 (noting Clarke - much as I like him for other reasons - was an incredibly lucky Chancellor in terms of the prevailing economic climate).
'One Nation' of course was originally coined by Disraeli, an interventionist who believed in government spending and improving the condition of the working classes rather than laissez-faire and was not a pure free marketeer but also a romantic and imperialist who believed in British influence on the world stage while not getting too involved in European affairs.
If anything Disraeli was closer to Boris than Ken Clarke
Tough new restrictions + huge new financial support
Begin tomorrow 23/12
Expected Intensive Care peak mid-January
Some details:
Everyone who can work from home must do so. Seated service only in restaurants, at one meter intervals. The government also advises against sports tournaments or camps for children and young people from 22 December to 16 January. Restrictions on retail: ten square meters per person. Booking is now mandatory on some trains.
A more extensive use of vaccine passes when more people receive the third dose.
At public gatherings and public events, no standing guests if more than 20 people, regardless of vaccination certificate. Without a vaccination certificate, stricter regulations. At events of more than 500 people, both vaccination certificates and distance between guests are required. Private events can be up to 50 people.
Financial support measures for culture of 120 million and 80 million for sports. Huge financial input into sick pay and time off to care for children etc
Not really a lockdown. 50 people at a party? I don’t have that many friends…
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
Tough new restrictions + huge new financial support
Begin tomorrow 23/12
Expected Intensive Care peak mid-January
That's disturbing, as given the earlier laissez-alle approach you should have high levels of prior infection. What's driving this?
I’m really not qualified to say. I find it all a bit confusing.
Sweden certainly seems to be doing a lot better than Norway, whereas the opposite was true last year.
My gut feeling is that prior infection is really not helping much. We know several people that have had Covid19 twice.
None of us, to our knowledge, have had it.
I hope that continues. But I'm sorry to hear Sweden feels the need to lock down.
I’d hardly call it lockdown! Barely affects me at all. I’ll be working from home a lot again, which I really enjoy. Schools, high schools and universities all open as normal. Shops easy to use. Very few bother with masks. Roads much quieter. It’s lovely in some ways. You can almost feel nature recovering.
Well, yes as described they're not very restrictive. The way you phrased it in your first post I assumed everyone would be tied up in their houses!
Simply writing down the main headline from the state broadcaster SVT. What they call “tough” the rest of the world might think wishy washy. This is after all the country where murderers get a big hug while tax evaders get locked up and the key thrown away.
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives.
Percentage wise those with top grades at KS2 are more likely to get into grammars than their peers at the same social economic class level but with lower KS2 grades
I see the great Truss Australia deal is paying off...........
The post-Brexit trade deal signed with Australia last week will see British agriculture, forestry and fishing take a £94m hit, the Government’s own impact assessment shows. There is also an expected £225m hit to the semi-processed food sector, which includes tinned products, as part of a “reallocation of resources within the economy”. The impact assessment refers to Australia as a “large, competitive producer of agricultural products”, making clear the “potential for the deal to result in lower output for some agricultural sectors [in the UK] as a result”.
Tough new restrictions + huge new financial support
Begin tomorrow 23/12
Expected Intensive Care peak mid-January
Some details:
Everyone who can work from home must do so. Seated service only in restaurants, at one meter intervals. The government also advises against sports tournaments or camps for children and young people from 22 December to 16 January. Restrictions on retail: ten square meters per person. Booking is now mandatory on some trains.
A more extensive use of vaccine passes when more people receive the third dose.
At public gatherings and public events, no standing guests if more than 20 people, regardless of vaccination certificate. Without a vaccination certificate, stricter regulations. At events of more than 500 people, both vaccination certificates and distance between guests are required. Private events can be up to 50 people.
Financial support measures for culture of 120 million and 80 million for sports. Huge financial input into sick pay and time off to care for children etc
So no real measures for the deadly Alpha, Beta, & Delta, yet for the much milder Omicron all this.
Nah. Most of this we did before. In fact it was much stricter before, eg high schools and universities were distance learning only, and total ban on all non-professional sports competitions for a long while.
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Can't prove it without taking a deep dive - which I can't face with Christmas coming up - but my sense is that some people with strong anti-lockdown sentiments are being misled by a Fraser Nelson twitter thread, inc Fraser himself.
I would think the Sage/Govt process for Covid works in essence as follows: Outcomes for hospitalizations if we do nothing are projected, key variables being spread of cases and severity of disease, each of these outcomes with a probability, and this is used to decide if action is needed. If action IS needed, the mitigating impact of various measures is estimated and this is used to decide what to do. All then subject to the politics and the polls and the money.
The issue is that the scenarios saying that action isn't needed weren't presented within the evidence. This is misleading.
It's inherently wrapped into the process. Model what happens with hospitalizations if nothing is done, get a range of outcomes with probabilities, use this to decide whether to do something. If this isn't the gist of what is happening, and nothing in that Fraser Nelson stuff indicates otherwise, I'd be surprised.
That's what should happen, but that's not what is happening. The favourable through to acceptable and bad but not catastrophic range of outcomes (like the model that Nelson referred to) were deliberately excluded from the report because of the misguided belief that they didn't "inform" anything, but they do.
If you snip out of the report 95% of the range* of outcomes rather than presenting it, then a distorted image is what is being presented.
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
Tough new restrictions + huge new financial support
Begin tomorrow 23/12
Expected Intensive Care peak mid-January
That's disturbing, as given the earlier laissez-alle approach you should have high levels of prior infection. What's driving this?
I’m really not qualified to say. I find it all a bit confusing.
Sweden certainly seems to be doing a lot better than Norway, whereas the opposite was true last year.
My gut feeling is that prior infection is really not helping much. We know several people that have had Covid19 twice.
None of us, to our knowledge, have had it.
I hope that continues. But I'm sorry to hear Sweden feels the need to lock down.
I’d hardly call it lockdown! Barely affects me at all. I’ll be working from home a lot again, which I really enjoy. Schools, high schools and universities all open as normal. Shops easy to use. Very few bother with masks. Roads much quieter. It’s lovely in some ways. You can almost feel nature recovering.
Well, yes as described they're not very restrictive. The way you phrased it in your first post I assumed everyone would be tied up in their houses!
That's just at weekends. If you are into that sort of thing.
Tough new restrictions + huge new financial support
Begin tomorrow 23/12
Expected Intensive Care peak mid-January
That's disturbing, as given the earlier laissez-alle approach you should have high levels of prior infection. What's driving this?
I’m really not qualified to say. I find it all a bit confusing.
Sweden certainly seems to be doing a lot better than Norway, whereas the opposite was true last year.
My gut feeling is that prior infection is really not helping much. We know several people that have had Covid19 twice.
None of us, to our knowledge, have had it.
I hope that continues. But I'm sorry to hear Sweden feels the need to lock down.
I’d hardly call it lockdown! Barely affects me at all. I’ll be working from home a lot again, which I really enjoy. Schools, high schools and universities all open as normal. Shops easy to use. Very few bother with masks. Roads much quieter. It’s lovely in some ways. You can almost feel nature recovering.
Well, yes as described they're not very restrictive. The way you phrased it in your first post I assumed everyone would be tied up in their houses!
That's just at weekends. If you are into that sort of thing.
According to Sage modelling (worst case scenario), the PM will soon become so unpopular he'll collapse inwardly and create a black hole that destroys all life on Earth.
The Sage modelling is wrong.
A black hole with the Johnson mass is quite harmless.
It becomes hotter and hotter, and evaporates away in ~ 6 ns.
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
Not enough though.
For a different example - the Buckinghamshire Grammar schools are now Academic Trusts which mean that when I travel from my Parents into London I see 200 or so pupils traveling from outside Bucks to Dominic Raab's (and my) old school
Those parents are paying £1000 or so a year on train fares to get their children into their preferred school while stealing the place of someone local.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Can't prove it without taking a deep dive - which I can't face with Christmas coming up - but my sense is that some people with strong anti-lockdown sentiments are being misled by a Fraser Nelson twitter thread, inc Fraser himself.
I would think the Sage/Govt process for Covid works in essence as follows: Outcomes for hospitalizations if we do nothing are projected, key variables being spread of cases and severity of disease, each of these outcomes with a probability, and this is used to decide if action is needed. If action IS needed, the mitigating impact of various measures is estimated and this is used to decide what to do. All then subject to the politics and the polls and the money.
The issue is that the scenarios saying that action isn't needed weren't presented within the evidence. This is misleading.
I'm not going to repeat all of my previous post, but that definitely is not what he said. You haven't understood the modelling, the evidence presented, or the Twitter thread you're basing all this on.
I understand the modelling, I have no issues with the modelling.
It is the reporting of the modelling, and the cherrypicking of models to report upon based upon which outcomes suit the agenda is the issue. Not the modelling itself.
Its what happened after the modelling was done, in how the report was presented that is the issue. It is not including the other outcomes from the modelling in the report that is the issue.
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives.
Percentage wise those with top grades at KS2 are more likely to get into grammars than their peers at the same social economic class level but with lower KS2 grades
Your second sentence is based on your utter inability to read and comprehend the impact of my second sentence.
But let's try this another way. The details above come from various teachers at Buckinghamshire's secondary moderns and from 1976 through to 2021.
FPT: TimT Posts: 4,808 8:04AM Philip_Thompson said: » show previous quotes But that's not common sense.
Yes you may want to highlight the detail of the worst case but you can't "forget about" the rest. That's not their choice to make.
If the models show things would probably be fine, but there's a worst case scenario where it's awful, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the models show things are definitely awful, and there's no positive scenario to show, then the politicians should get all that information.
If the modellers choose to disregard any scenarios that aren't catastrophic then there's no distinction between those two cases when there really should be!
What the politicians choose to do with the information is for them. But they should get the full oversight not just a cherry picked version.
In managing risks in conditions of ignorance, you can forget about the scenarios that require no action, as the default is no action. What you are concerned about is whether action needs to be taken, because a failure to take timely action is by its nature a fall back to the default of no action.
Thus, in conditions of ignorance and one or more scenarios that contain high consequence hazards* (not risks - we are avoiding numbers as we are in the zone of ignorance) that potentially would result in Never Events, you do just concentrate on those scenarios with such hazards and potential Never Event consequences.
* For those who don't know the vocabulary, a hazard is something that can cause harm, regardless of probability; and risk is a numerical calculation of probability x impact, which requires numerical values for both p and I
And yet in industry - where I have spent 30 years involved in risk management as part of exploration teams - you always include the scenarios which require no action. Indeed the whole basis of a risk matrix is that you try and reduce risks to the ALARP level by looking at what, if any, mitigations are necessary to counter potential hazards. Within in that you always include all possible hazards, even those which are already mitigated to effectively no risk to show that you have taken them into account.
By only including inputs which lead to the need for action you are forcing the decision makers to take action where it may not be necessary, or worse where the consequences of action are worse than the consequences of inaction.
Can't prove it without taking a deep dive - which I can't face with Christmas coming up - but my sense is that some people with strong anti-lockdown sentiments are being misled by a Fraser Nelson twitter thread, inc Fraser himself.
I would think the Sage/Govt process for Covid works in essence as follows: Outcomes for hospitalizations if we do nothing are projected, key variables being spread of cases and severity of disease, each of these outcomes with a probability, and this is used to decide if action is needed. If action IS needed, the mitigating impact of various measures is estimated and this is used to decide what to do. All then subject to the politics and the polls and the money.
Well you'd expect that to be the case. But the implication is that the bit about the 'probability of each case' is either missing or not based on the evidence we have. I don't know if that's actually the case.
I've read the Fraser Nelson twitter thread and I sense it's cross purposes between expert and layman. In essence I think the process goes like this - They model what happens with no action. If the worst realistic outcome is livable with it drives a decision of no action. Otherwise it's refine and focus on what best to do.
On Omi the problem is the uncertainty - ie big spread between best case and worst case - combined with the speed it's moving. Meaning if they don't act while still in the semi dark, by the time the lights come on it will be to illuminate a horror show.
But fwiw I still think no lockdown or if there is one it'll be 4 weeks max.
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives
The point is, the poor oiks don't get into the grammar school to compete with the rich children. That's a feature not a bug.
Utter rubbish. Plenty of bright but poor kids go to grammars, plenty of rich but thick kids go to Stowe
Not enough though.
For a different example - the Buckinghamshire Grammar schools are now Academic Trusts which mean that when I travel from my Parents into London I see 200 or so pupils traveling from outside Bucks to Dominic Raab's (and my) old school
Those parents are paying £1000 or so a year on train fares to get their children into their preferred school while stealing the place of someone local.
Aylesbury grammar school admissions policy for example is:
'Where qualifying applications for admission exceed the number of places available, places will be allocated in the following order of priority: 5.1.1. Looked after boys and previously looked after boys . 1 2 5.1.2. Boys who are eligible for free school meals as at the application deadline. 3 5.1.3. Siblings of boys who will be on roll of Aylesbury Grammar School at the date of the 4 applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.4. Siblings (as defined above) of girls who will be on roll of Aylesbury High School at the date of the applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.5. Siblings (as defined above) of boys who have previously been on the roll of Aylesbury Grammar School. 1 A 'looked after boy' is a boy who is in the care of a local authority, or being provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of their social services functions. 2 A 'previously looked after boy' is a boy who was looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted or became subject to a child arrangements order or special guardianship order. 3 For the purposes of this policy, entitlement to Free School Meals on 31 October in the year before entry to Year 7 is sought needs to be demonstrated. 4 A 'sibling' is a full brother (sharing both parents), half-brother (sharing one parent), adopted brother (sharing one or both parents), foster brother, or step brother (where one's parent is married to the other's parent) and the son of the cohabiting partner of the applicant boy's parent, and in all cases who permanently live at the applicant boy's home address (as defined by this policy) and are being brought up as part of the same core family unit as siblings. For the avoidance of doubt, the sons of extended family members (e.g. cousins) and friends will not be 'siblings' for the purpose of this policy, even where they permanently live at the same home address as the applicant boy. Page 3 5.1.6. Boys who have exceptional medical or social needs which can only be met at Aylesbury Grammar School, and no other school, where their application for admission is supported by written evidence from a doctor, social worker, educational welfare officer or other appropriately qualified person confirming this. 5.1.7. Boys living in the catchment area of the school as at and continuously from 31 October of the year preceding entry to Year 7 in September. 5.1.8. All other boys'
"Stay at home as much as possible" "Minimise Hogmanay socialising" "Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh" "No evidence omichron is less deadly" "3 weeks no spectator sports" "No casual sports" "3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
Some excellent post on the last thread guys. I mean really good.
Re poor Comprehensives in deprived areas I agree, but this is probably a lot more to do with the issues of the area than anything else. The answer certainly isn't going back to Secondary Moderns.
I see @HYUFD is continuing to compare stats on Grammar schools to Comprehensives and ignoring the samples are completely different because the Grammar has selected.
If you lived in a deprived area 50 years ago you could go to a grammar school if intelligent.
Now your only choice would be a comprehensive likely to be a secondary modern in all but name if you do not have wealthy parents who can send you to private school
That doesn't answer the point.
It does. Unless you live in a wealthy suburb or rural area (or go to a comprehensive or academy where admission is based on church attendance) comprehensives are often just renamed secondary moderns effectively.
@MikeSmithson is correct. It doesn't answer the point. As usual you just raise another point and don't address the point raised. It is a moving target.
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
There are limits on how much you can tutor for 11+ and 13+ tests which are designed to test raw iq not subject knowledge as such. Indeed very often even a few bright kids from council estates got into grammar schools even without tutors and then onto Oxbridge or other top universities and professional careers. That path is not open to them to the same extent now if they live in a deprived area and just get sent to the local very average, if that, comp.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
Um no there isn't - otherwise you wouldn't see the disparity you get between KS2 stats and Grammar school selection in places like Kent and Buckingshire.
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
What disparity? The key stat is how many high performers at KS2 as a percentage of intake get top grade A levels and places at Russell Group universities at grammars compared to at comprehensives.
Percentage wise those with top grades at KS2 are more likely to get into grammars than their peers at the same social economic class level but with lower KS2 grades
Your second sentence is based on your utter inability to read and comprehend the impact of my second sentence.
But let's try this another way. The details above come from various teachers at Buckinghamshire's secondary moderns and from 1976 through to 2021.
What exactly are you basing your facts on?
Not your leftwing anti grammar school agenda and facts and data you have not posted other than anecdotes from leftwing secondary modern teachers to support your ideological agenda as a conservative I am ideologically opposed to.
Comments
Carrie just has to make sure she times the divorce correctly, after the book deal has been signed and the speaking tour booked.
What next, independence for the ScoTories?
I've just completed my 365th run of the year.
2695.02 miles (4,337 km).
At least if the dreaded Covid hits me now, I can still say I've done the equivalent of one run a day this year...
But the graph has been declining steadily since May, well before Paterson became a thing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-57025266
He mentioned his experiences with people concentrating on the scenarios which required more and dramatic actions - that they liked/felt appropriate. Doing nothing isn't sexy - military people seemed to grasp it's value, but politicians always wanted to do *something*
Apparently, technique that military planners would use, when dealing with politicians was to turn "do nothing" into a 1500 page "scenario plan" to match the other 1500 page plans.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32 for the new textbook example of what the industry calls Crew Resource Management. And they were very lucky to have so many crew.
I would think the Sage/Govt process for Covid works in essence as follows: Outcomes for hospitalizations if we do nothing are projected, key variables being spread of cases and severity of disease, each of these outcomes with a probability, and this is used to decide if action is needed. If action IS needed, the mitigating impact of various measures is estimated and this is used to decide what to do. All then subject to the politics and the polls and the money.
Incidentally, another in the series had a half-hour interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger talking about Churchill. Surprisingly entertaining and interesting.
Public sector net borrowing (excluding public sector banks, PSNB ex) was estimated to have been £17.4 billion in November 2021; this was the second-highest November borrowing since monthly records began in 1993, £4.9 billion less than in November 2020.
The end of furlough doesn't appear to have helped much in terms of the public finances.
AKA sell the Baltics out.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/asia/maldives/quarantined-maldivian-villa-sounds-dreamy-turning-nightmare/
If someone can tell me how to share a screen shot, I will share the model once I am done with the workshop I have to give now.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/14/history-turned-on-tory-voting-scotland-thatcher-1980s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006
" They had descended 30,000 ft (9,100 m) in under two and a half minutes while all onboard experienced g-forces as high as 5g."
"The wings were permanently bent upwards by 2 inches (5 cm), the inboard main landing gear lost two actuator doors, and the two inboard main gear struts were left dangling. Most affected was the tail, where large outer parts of the horizontal stabilizer had been ripped off. The entire left outboard elevator had been lost along with its actuator, which had been powered by the hydraulic system that ruptured and drained."
At least the cabinet are now controlling Boris
For some, it seems 'One Nation' is basically just another way of saying 'pro EU'
An interesting What-If - Churchill follows his original impulse and goes to Gallipoli, personally? Can't see him allowing the sitting around that happened at the start....
Does she have views of her own that aren't wholly sensible? Probably. Does she have expensive tastes? Quite possibly. Are some aides jealous of her access to the PM? No doubt at all about it.
But Boris Johnson isn't being led astray by her - he is basically just the same prick he's always been.
On one day I did three runs. I did a ten-miler in the dark one Sunday this autumn, then got home for breakfast. Mrs J was feeling unwell, so I did the junior Parkrun with the little 'un. Whilst there, I met Mrs J's friend. They were meant to be running together, and she asked me to run instead. So I did another four miles after the Parkrun with her. Three runs in a morning: 10 miles, 1.2 miles, and 4 miles.
But I didn't count the park run in my official stats. It was too short...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 is the poster child for three pilots managing to put a perfectly serviceable aeroplane nose first into the ocean. Yet people still wonder why I don’t fly AF.
For some reason, reminds me of the story that an out of control Avro Vulcan got deep in to mach tuck - the pilot seriously considered rolling inverted to pull out of the dive!
🏴 753,793
🏴 69,135
NI 29,016
(no 🏴 update, must be data issue)
Re your point on living in a poor area and being able to go to a grammar, this is very naïve. What actually happens is the middle class and well off in surrounding areas get tutored for the test and fill the spaces. The bright kids in the poor areas don't and they still don't get in by and large.
I lived in a relatively poor large village with 2 primary schools. Only one boy got into the boys grammar school and no girls to the girls grammar school. And that boy dropped out. I have no memory of even taking a test let alone getting tutored. After O levels a whole bunch of replaced those that had dropped out. The system is crap at selection and selecting at 11 is far too soon.
According to Sage modelling (worst case scenario), the PM will soon become so unpopular he'll collapse inwardly and create a black hole that destroys all life on Earth.
Edited extra bit: this means we need an immediate lockdown, obviously.
Boris has always been a moderating influence on the Brittania Unchained cabal.
Everyone who can work from home must do so. Seated service only in restaurants, at one meter intervals. The government also advises against sports tournaments or camps for children and young people from 22 December to 16 January. Restrictions on retail: ten square meters per person. Booking is now mandatory on some trains.
A more extensive use of vaccine passes when more people receive the third dose.
At public gatherings and public events, no standing guests if more than 20 people, regardless of vaccination certificate. Without a vaccination certificate, stricter regulations. At events of more than 500 people, both vaccination certificates and distance between guests are required. Private events can be up to 50 people.
Financial support measures for culture of 120 million and 80 million for sports.
Huge financial input into sick pay and time off to care for children etc
Edit: one hopes that the second part of the historical story is not an accurate analogy; but certainly the wider issue of privatising the public good is a major concern.
What's been good is the pick up in first and second doses, lots of low hanging fruit there we could have done earlier with a bit more of a publicity drive for vaccines. Also just about to hit 70% of England's population double vaxxed which is really good after such a slow ascent from 65%.
London people our rates are 83% single vaxxed and 75% double vaxxed for over 12s and 40% boosted for over 12s. That's way better than what most people think.
If you were well off and had a kid who was not so bright and would not pass the 11 or 13+ you could still send them private however and still do. Most wealthy parents did not send their children to secondary moderns and do not send their children to comprehensives and certainly not comprehensives or academies which are any less than Outstanding. So the rich generally don't use comprehensives anyway while the bright but poor no longer have the opportunities grammars provided. Most grammars of course also have entries at sixth form level too
@SebastianEPayne
·
5m
No further Covid movement expected in Whitehall today - "we're in a holding pattern" one insider says.
Every days delay is a victory against those working to get restrictions in before the dreaded organic drop in cases.
If anything Disraeli was closer to Boris than Ken Clarke
All schools will have a yearly example where the intelligent child whose parents couldn't afford test tuition fails to get in.
Percentage wise those with top grades at KS2 are more likely to get into grammars than their peers at the same social economic class level but with lower KS2 grades
The post-Brexit trade deal signed with Australia last week will see British agriculture, forestry and fishing take a £94m hit, the Government’s own impact assessment shows.
There is also an expected £225m hit to the semi-processed food sector, which includes tinned products, as part of a “reallocation of resources within the economy”.
The impact assessment refers to Australia as a “large, competitive producer of agricultural products”, making clear the “potential for the deal to result in lower output for some agricultural sectors [in the UK] as a result”.
* I know
If you snip out of the report 95% of the range* of outcomes rather than presenting it, then a distorted image is what is being presented.
* Number plucked from air.
Such symmetry!
- "It's due to running out of testing capacity"
- "Vulnerable groups aren't getting the tests they need"
- "What about reinfections..."
etc. etc.
A black hole with the Johnson mass is quite harmless.
It becomes hotter and hotter, and evaporates away in ~ 6 ns.
For a different example - the Buckinghamshire Grammar schools are now Academic Trusts which mean that when I travel from my Parents into London I see 200 or so pupils traveling from outside Bucks to Dominic Raab's (and my) old school
Those parents are paying £1000 or so a year on train fares to get their children into their preferred school while stealing the place of someone local.
Football matches in Scotland to be limited to 500 fans in bid to control Omicron
EXCLUSIVE: The First Minister will provide an update on coronavirus restrictions to MSPs at a session of the Scottish Parliament.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/football-matches-scotland-limited-500-25754343
It is the reporting of the modelling, and the cherrypicking of models to report upon based upon which outcomes suit the agenda is the issue. Not the modelling itself.
Its what happened after the modelling was done, in how the report was presented that is the issue. It is not including the other outcomes from the modelling in the report that is the issue.
But let's try this another way. The details above come from various teachers at Buckinghamshire's secondary moderns and from 1976 through to 2021.
What exactly are you basing your facts on?
Basically ICU numbers are tracking cases rises rather too closely for comfort.
On Omi the problem is the uncertainty - ie big spread between best case and worst case - combined with the speed it's moving. Meaning if they don't act while still in the semi dark, by the time the lights come on it will be to illuminate a horror show.
But fwiw I still think no lockdown or if there is one it'll be 4 weeks max.
'Where qualifying applications for admission exceed the number of places available, places
will be allocated in the following order of priority:
5.1.1. Looked after boys and previously looked after boys .
1 2
5.1.2. Boys who are eligible for free school meals as at the application deadline.
3
5.1.3. Siblings of boys who will be on roll of Aylesbury Grammar School at the date of the
4
applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September.
5.1.4. Siblings (as defined above) of girls who will be on roll of Aylesbury High School at the
date of the applicant boy's entry to Year 7 in September.
5.1.5. Siblings (as defined above) of boys who have previously been on the roll of
Aylesbury Grammar School.
1 A 'looked after boy' is a boy who is in the care of a local authority, or being provided with accommodation by a local authority in the exercise of
their social services functions.
2 A 'previously looked after boy' is a boy who was looked after, but ceased to be so because they were adopted or became subject to a child
arrangements order or special guardianship order.
3 For the purposes of this policy, entitlement to Free School Meals on 31 October in the year before entry to Year 7 is sought needs to be
demonstrated.
4 A 'sibling' is a full brother (sharing both parents), half-brother (sharing one parent), adopted brother (sharing one or both parents), foster brother,
or step brother (where one's parent is married to the other's parent) and the son of the cohabiting partner of the applicant boy's parent, and in all
cases who permanently live at the applicant boy's home address (as defined by this policy) and are being brought up as part of the same core
family unit as siblings. For the avoidance of doubt, the sons of extended family members (e.g. cousins) and friends will not be 'siblings' for the
purpose of this policy, even where they permanently live at the same home address as the applicant boy.
Page 3
5.1.6. Boys who have exceptional medical or social needs which can only be met at
Aylesbury Grammar School, and no other school, where their application for
admission is supported by written evidence from a doctor, social worker, educational
welfare officer or other appropriately qualified person confirming this.
5.1.7. Boys living in the catchment area of the school as at and continuously from 31
October of the year preceding entry to Year 7 in September.
5.1.8. All other boys'
So those who pass the entrance exam and are looked after or on free school meals and those in the catchment area get priority over those outside the area, even if some of the latter are still admitted
https://www.ags.bucks.sch.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2020-Admission-Policy-v3-November-2018.pdf
"Stay at home as much as possible"
"Minimise Hogmanay socialising"
"Hogmanay party cancelled in Edinburgh"
"No evidence omichron is less deadly"
"3 weeks no spectator sports"
"No casual sports"
"3 weeks only table service, 1m distancing"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59739947
Careful, I'll go full Malcy on you.