I am really starting to wonder about a lot of this academic work. The circuit breaker model isnt range between 5k and 107k, no, apparently it is a range between 800 and 106k lives saved in the next 2.5 months....
I think they need to turn the computer off and on again and perhaps give it a kick inbetween.
Because "I have no idea" is not a scientific answer. Saying that the answer is between 1 and 1 trillion is the scientific way of saying "I have no idea. My model doesn't work."
That the next Express headline sorted. "1 trillion dead by Christmas."
The interesting thing is that on this site a very wide group of people from across the political spectrum can tell what is wrong with the idea of a 2 week circuit break.
Why can't the media ask any questions?
And many of them have got it completely round their necks. "It's not long enough for it to work" and "It's not long enough to see if it's working" for instance, entirely miss the point.
No they don't because they are two separate points.
The latter one for instance is an honest problem. If you shut down for 2 weeks but hospitalisatons are still rising again at the end of the 2 weeks (due to lag) then do you seriously lift the restrictions or extend them? You can say now that you'd lift the restrictions but we have good reason to be sceptical that would happen.
I've noticed that RCP tends to headline the state polls that are good for Trump like Florida Trump +2, even when there are more surprising ones like Georgia Biden +2.
Their 2012 poll average was skewed even more towards Romney due to the selective nature of the poll that went into their average.
I would describe them as "Leans GOP"
Hardly, RCP's final 2012 forecast was Obama 303 Romney 235, pretty accurate and in 2016 it was Clinton 272 Trump 262 which was more accurate than 538's final forecast of Clinton 302 Trump 235
Hardly. That's their no toss up scenario, you still don't understand this uncertainty thing do you?
Just pollsters covering their backs, only the final forecast matters for judging them
Bullshit.
That's you shoving your head in the sand because understanding the big picture is just too difficult for you.
No just you making excuses for pollsters who forecast the result wrong
They didn't forecast it wrong, they forecast it within their forecast margin.
If you don't understand that, that's on you not me or them. I have no reason to "make excuses" for pollsters - but I do have reason to try and understand the very basic and fundamental concept of uncertainty.
Take 538 for instance, you for some reason claim that they were "wrong" in 2016 because they'd given Trump a 28.6% chance and Hillary a 71.6% chance but that doesn't make them wrong. If you run a scenario often enough you should expect a 28% chance to come in a bit over a quarter of the time, that doesn't make you wrong - it makes you right.
In extremis if you had 100 scenarios you'd given a 71.6% chance to and all 100 came in then your prediction was fundamentally flawed.
538 have been around for four Presidential elections now. The 28% chance coming in on one of those 4 occasions is not "wrong". It is simply understanding how probability works.
538 final forecast Clinton 302 Trump 235
RCP final forecast Clinton 272 Trump 262.
That final forecast is when pollsters and polling websites put their head on the block and can be judged, on that basis in 2016 RCP got closer to the result than 538 did
Pretty clear the big wins in terms of interventions to reduce infections are:
WFH where possible (is this not the case already?)
Close Unis/FE
Close schools.
Household interactions are about as limited as they usefully can be. Closing non-essential retail and hospitality has a marginal effect. Universities need to be closed again somehow without distributing infected students into the community. Which leaves schools if we still need to get to R=1.
Schools, rightly IMO, are given priority, but aren't sacrosanct if R is above 1. Which is where circuit breakers come in. They are the most effective way of partially closing schools.
The Government have to choose which bad headline they want.
They can either have one about overpaid consultants or they can have one about track & trace being a complete and abject failure.
Admittedly they might conspire to get both if they don't resource /scope/sponsor it properly but capping the market when they need skilled and urgent resources in an emergency situation is a recipe for disaster.
What experience do BCG have of managing pandemics?
I don't carry any card for BCG - it's not a consultant I've worked for or with - but they will have highly capable and experienced people in data interrogation, analysis and complex project and portfolio management who've got a track record of quick delivery in very urgent environments.
The public sector simply won't have the number of required resources or skills to do it - and they pay poor salaries, typically 30-40% below what the best people can get in the private sector and don't operate at anything like the same velocity - so are left with little source but to temporarily bring consultants in if they want to get it done.
I am sure they have capable people and certainly more capable than Harding. Over reliance on senior people without a long term stake in a project is a very bad plan though. The track record of govt IT and overpaid consultants makes it pretty clear it is an ineffective policy.
To be fair a lot of that is down to ever changing scope and very bad sponsorship (something only the Government can control) but it will always be the consultants that take the blame.
Don't get me wrong - I don't expect anyone to have much sympathy. No-one much likes consultants and they are very expensive. Far too many are overpaid and useless too. But there are also some exceptional people in there who are very very good.
Ultimately that's why they can command the high salaries and high rates.
The most capable people I have met in business are management consultants so I dont have a problem with consultants generally. It is at the top tier where it is pointless and the biggest waste of money. BCG wont have control over strategy, or be responsible for success or failure. Their senior people are mostly there to sell the services of consultants lower down the food chain.
The strategy is decided by a small cohort of politicians and bureaucrats based on politics. It is then changed several times as the politics changes. There is no point paying fortunes to strategy consultants for each iteration.
The Government have to choose which bad headline they want.
They can either have one about overpaid consultants or they can have one about track & trace being a complete and abject failure.
Admittedly they might conspire to get both if they don't resource /scope/sponsor it properly but capping the market when they need skilled and urgent resources in an emergency situation is a recipe for disaster.
What experience do BCG have of managing pandemics?
I don't carry any card for BCG - it's not a consultant I've worked for or with - but they will have highly capable and experienced people in data interrogation, analysis and complex project and portfolio management who've got a track record of quick delivery in very urgent environments.
The public sector simply won't have the number of required resources or skills to do it - and they pay poor salaries, typically 30-40% below what the best people can get in the private sector and don't operate at anything like the same velocity - so are left with little source but to temporarily bring consultants in if they want to get it done.
I am sure they have capable people and certainly more capable than Harding. Over reliance on senior people without a long term stake in a project is a very bad plan though. The track record of govt IT and overpaid consultants makes it pretty clear it is an ineffective policy.
To be fair a lot of that is down to ever changing scope and very bad sponsorship (something only the Government can control) but it will always be the consultants that take the blame.
Don't get me wrong - I don't expect anyone to have much sympathy. No-one much likes consultants and they are very expensive. Far too many are overpaid and useless too. But there are also some exceptional people in there who are very very good.
Ultimately that's why they can command the high salaries and high rates.
The most capable people I have met in business are management consultants so I dont have a problem with consultants generally. It is at the top tier where it is pointless and the biggest waste of money. BCG wont have control over strategy, or be responsible for success or failure. Their senior people are mostly there to sell the services of consultants lower down the food chain.
The strategy is decided by a small cohort of politicians and bureaucrats based on politics. It is then changed several times as the politics changes. There is no point paying fortunes to strategy consultants for each iteration.
Pretty clear the big wins in terms of interventions to reduce infections are:
WFH where possible (is this not the case already?)
Close Unis/FE
Close schools.
Household interactions are about as limited as they usefully can be. Closing non-essential retail and hospitality has a marginal effect. Universities need to be closed again somehow without distributing infected students into the community. Which leaves schools if we still need to get to R=1.
Schools, rightly IMO, are given priority, but aren't sacrosanct if R is above 1. Which is where circuit breakers come in. They are the most effective way of partially closing schools.
Universities should not close or send students home, they should work online as far as possible. Dispersing the students across the country would be checking a fire on pools of petrol, as well as damaging to youngsters education.
The interesting thing is that on this site a very wide group of people from across the political spectrum can tell what is wrong with the idea of a 2 week circuit break.
Why can't the media ask any questions?
And many of them have got it completely round their necks. "It's not long enough for it to work" and "It's not long enough to see if it's working" for instance, entirely miss the point.
Not at all...here is the actual situation.
Ok chaps, whats a good idea to squish the old sombrero, cos the warning lighting are flashing...
A 2 week circuit breaker...
Cripes chaps, that sounds like one of those lockdowns again, and how much squishness do we get for this?
We don't know...somewhere between 800 and 107,000 saved lives.
Great, we save between 80,000 and 100,000, Dom fire up the autocue machine....
No 800..
What, 800...are you sure..
Well...
And if i do this circuit breaker thingy, when will know if it has worked.
A month afterwards.
What...so i have to announce the end of it, when we don't know if it has worked.
Well...that up to you PM...but announced cases and deaths will probably still be increasing..
So, you want me to implement a policy that net might not save any lives and then have to announce the end of it while cases are probably still going up and we might later find we stopped it too soon and caused more deaths....
I've noticed that RCP tends to headline the state polls that are good for Trump like Florida Trump +2, even when there are more surprising ones like Georgia Biden +2.
Their 2012 poll average was skewed even more towards Romney due to the selective nature of the poll that went into their average.
I would describe them as "Leans GOP"
Hardly, RCP's final 2012 forecast was Obama 303 Romney 235, pretty accurate and in 2016 it was Clinton 272 Trump 262 which was more accurate than 538's final forecast of Clinton 302 Trump 235
Hardly. That's their no toss up scenario, you still don't understand this uncertainty thing do you?
Just pollsters covering their backs, only the final forecast matters for judging them
Bullshit.
That's you shoving your head in the sand because understanding the big picture is just too difficult for you.
No just you making excuses for pollsters who forecast the result wrong
They didn't forecast it wrong, they forecast it within their forecast margin.
If you don't understand that, that's on you not me or them. I have no reason to "make excuses" for pollsters - but I do have reason to try and understand the very basic and fundamental concept of uncertainty.
Take 538 for instance, you for some reason claim that they were "wrong" in 2016 because they'd given Trump a 28.6% chance and Hillary a 71.6% chance but that doesn't make them wrong. If you run a scenario often enough you should expect a 28% chance to come in a bit over a quarter of the time, that doesn't make you wrong - it makes you right.
In extremis if you had 100 scenarios you'd given a 71.6% chance to and all 100 came in then your prediction was fundamentally flawed.
538 have been around for four Presidential elections now. The 28% chance coming in on one of those 4 occasions is not "wrong". It is simply understanding how probability works.
538 final forecast Clinton 302 Trump 235
RCP final forecast Clinton 272 Trump 262.
That final forecast is when pollsters and polling websites put their head on the block and can be judged, on that basis in 2016 RCP got closer to the result than 538 did
538 final forecast Clinton 71.4% Trump 28.6%
The 28.6% happened.
If you don't understand that, that's your ignorance not anyone else's.
Bozo started following the science. Then he followed Scotland. Now he's going to follow the opposition, isn't he?
(I'm very much not making a direct parallel in the below) I wonder if PB had existed in WW2 what the daily Churchill posts would have been like? The fall of Singapore? Would have been ugly! (Not making parallels disclaimer off)
Boris is doing ok. Just ok though, and that's making allowance for the impossibility of the situation and some small allowance for him being ill.
The Government is doing much the same (a tad better perhaps).
The opposition is doing well too. I don't agree with their current policy flash, but they are being quite responsible.
Comparing Bozo to Churchill is an insult to the latter, though, isn’t it?
I’m reading ‘the Splendid and the Vile’ at the moment - the story of the Churchill family and Britain in 1940 written in novelistic style by an American. It’s a very good read.
One thing that strikes you about Churchill is that he was a workaholic and obsessive over details. He sat in bed firing off memos to all and sundry about every minutiae of Britain’s defences. A lot of this was of course unhelpful, but you can’t fault him for not being interested in knowing the detail, nor for not making sure that pretty much every idea that came his way was researched by someone, so that no loose end was left untied.
Nor did he spend the crisis chasing after every young musician who came his way.
His style of politics and governance was about as far from that of the lazy clown currently in No 10 as it is possible to imagine.
I think I was pretty clear in NOT comparing Boris with Churchill.
Your disclaimer in brackets was in the realm of “I’m not racist but....”. Why bring up wartime stuff if you didn’t intend to make some sort of comparison?
Because wartime stuff was clearly different and I wanted to distinguish. I also didn't want to compare Boris with Churchill. What I did want to do is ponder the ups and down of government. Perhaps I could have phrased it more carefully?
Why not a circuit breaker across the whole country? And why 9pm, what's the science behind that?
Finish work at 3pm like most French people, go spend a few hours with your lover, then an hour to get back home to your wife/husband and that's how you get to 9pm.
Wednesday brings another onslaught of polling from across the Pond.
I'll start with the State polls this evening - two new polls from North Carolina confirm the narrow Biden lead while contradictory polls from Florida with a 2-point Biden lead in one balanced by Trafalgar putting Trump up by two.
Solid Biden leads in Michigan and New Hampshire and a 2-point advantage in Georgia.
Georgia and Florida remain TCTC in my view so I've made no change to my current projection.
I'm not quite sure why Trafalgar felt a poll for Louisiana was a good idea. Trump won by 20 in 2016 and Trafalgar now shown a 16-point Trump advantage (54-38). Louisiana hasn't voted Democrat since 1996 and it's not going to this time either.
Two national polls tonight - Rasmussen has Biden up 50-45 while Economist/YouGov has Biden ahead 52-42.
In truth, the weekly YouGov poll hasn't changed much despite all Trump's antics. The detail makes interesting reading - among men, Biden leads by four and among women by fourteen.
It's not for me to tell OGH he's wrong but the article claiming it was women where Trump was doing badly was wrong - Trump has lost more support among men than women (which raises some interesting questions).
Trump leads by 5 among White voters - a group he won by 21 last time so that's an 8% swing. To be fair, Trump is doing slightly better among Hispanic voters than he did in 2016 picking up a 2% swing. That might help a little in Florida and perhaps Nevada and Arizona but as a share of the overall national voting population, not so much.
The strength Biden has among white men is, I believe, helping him in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania which are three vital seats.
Caveats: - it ain't over yet and if a week is a long time in politics, three weeks is a very very long time. Among those who have already voted, however, Biden has a huge advantage. Independent voters are 41-37 for Biden but contain the largest bloc of Undecided voters so that could obviously swing back to Trump.
One set of Sage documents reveals how much individual policies may cut the R number by:
Close all bars, pubs, cafes and restaurants could reduce R by 0.1-0.2 Close all indoor gyms and leisure centres could reduce R by up to 0.1 Closing non-essential retail would have "minimal impact" on transmission Stopping people mixing in homes could reduce R by 0.1-0.2 Working from home reduce R by 0.2-0.4 Closing all schools could reduce R by 0.2-0.5
This is useful information. A shame we only have it now, but still. One can reasonably assume then that the 10pm curfew does very little, and how many restrictions you need to put in place to keep schools open.
It also shows there seem to be areas that are now immune from lockdown whatever the prevalence of the disease - ie going to work and education.
And yet.... "He also points to research by the gyms' trade body UK Active which found that for 22 million visits across England between 25 July and 13 September only 78 cases have been reported." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54535679
Pretty clear the big wins in terms of interventions to reduce infections are:
WFH where possible (is this not the case already?)
Apparently there is an organisation in Westminster with a lot of people who are being made to work at their workplace rather than from home despite their security team having dozens of positive tests. The employees then go back to their constituencies at the weekends, meeting lots of people there as well.
Wednesday brings another onslaught of polling from across the Pond.
I'll start with the State polls this evening - two new polls from North Carolina confirm the narrow Biden lead while contradictory polls from Florida with a 2-point Biden lead in one balanced by Trafalgar putting Trump up by two.
Solid Biden leads in Michigan and New Hampshire and a 2-point advantage in Georgia.
Georgia and Florida remain TCTC in my view so I've made no change to my current projection.
I'm not quite sure why Trafalgar felt a poll for Louisiana was a good idea. Trump won by 20 in 2016 and Trafalgar now shown a 16-point Trump advantage (54-38). Louisiana hasn't voted Democrat since 1996 and it's not going to this time either.
Two national polls tonight - Rasmussen has Biden up 50-45 while Economist/YouGov has Biden ahead 52-42.
In truth, the weekly YouGov poll hasn't changed much despite all Trump's antics. The detail makes interesting reading - among men, Biden leads by four and among women by fourteen.
It's not for me to tell OGH he's wrong but the article claiming it was women where Trump was doing badly was wrong - Trump has lost more support among men than women (which raises some interesting questions).
Trump leads by 5 among White voters - a group he won by 21 last time so that's an 8% swing. To be fair, Trump is doing slightly better among Hispanic voters than he did in 2016 picking up a 2% swing. That might help a little in Florida and perhaps Nevada and Arizona but as a share of the overall national voting population, not so much.
The strength Biden has among white men is, I believe, helping him in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania which are three vital seats.
Caveats: - it ain't over yet and if a week is a long time in politics, three weeks is a very very long time. Among those who have already voted, however, Biden has a huge advantage. Independent voters are 41-37 for Biden but contain the largest bloc of Undecided voters so that could obviously swing back to Trump.
One set of Sage documents reveals how much individual policies may cut the R number by:
Close all bars, pubs, cafes and restaurants could reduce R by 0.1-0.2 Close all indoor gyms and leisure centres could reduce R by up to 0.1 Closing non-essential retail would have "minimal impact" on transmission Stopping people mixing in homes could reduce R by 0.1-0.2 Working from home reduce R by 0.2-0.4 Closing all schools could reduce R by 0.2-0.5
This is useful information. A shame we only have it now, but still. One can reasonably assume then that the 10pm curfew does very little, and how many restrictions you need to put in place to keep schools open.
It also shows there seem to be areas that are now immune from lockdown whatever the prevalence of the disease - ie going to work and education.
And yet.... "He also points to research by the gyms' trade body UK Active which found that for 22 million visits across England between 25 July and 13 September only 78 cases have been reported." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54535679
The interesting thing is that on this site a very wide group of people from across the political spectrum can tell what is wrong with the idea of a 2 week circuit break.
Why can't the media ask any questions?
And many of them have got it completely round their necks. "It's not long enough for it to work" and "It's not long enough to see if it's working" for instance, entirely miss the point.
No they don't because they are two separate points.
The latter one for instance is an honest problem. If you shut down for 2 weeks but hospitalisatons are still rising again at the end of the 2 weeks (due to lag) then do you seriously lift the restrictions or extend them? You can say now that you'd lift the restrictions but we have good reason to be sceptical that would happen.
What? I know they are two separate points. I stated them as two separate points. That's what "and" means.
And again you miss the point. We know what works and we know what the incubation period is, so we can calculate the expected effect and lag with some accuracy. Of course there's a chance of a genuine cock up which makes those calculations wrong, but it is far more likely that the people saying "Look, your circuit break didn't work" at the end of two weeks are going to be Allison Pearson grade fuckwits who do not understand lag. And your statement that two weeks is "not long enough" to reduce hospitalisation numbers is a howling fallacy. Infection, and positive testing, are discrete events which map one to one, so one week of effective circuit break results in one week's worth fewer cases further down the line. There isn't a minimum time period a break has to last before this effect starts to happen.
Why not a circuit breaker across the whole country? And why 9pm, what's the science behind that?
Finish work at 3pm like most French people, go spend a few hours with your lover, then an hour to get back home to your wife/husband and that's how you get to 9pm.
I love the fact that a curfew is a couvre-feu. I've often idly wondered what the derivation was.
One set of Sage documents reveals how much individual policies may cut the R number by:
Close all bars, pubs, cafes and restaurants could reduce R by 0.1-0.2 Close all indoor gyms and leisure centres could reduce R by up to 0.1 Closing non-essential retail would have "minimal impact" on transmission Stopping people mixing in homes could reduce R by 0.1-0.2 Working from home reduce R by 0.2-0.4 Closing all schools could reduce R by 0.2-0.5
This is useful information. A shame we only have it now, but still. One can reasonably assume then that the 10pm curfew does very little, and how many restrictions you need to put in place to keep schools open.
It also shows there seem to be areas that are now immune from lockdown whatever the prevalence of the disease - ie going to work and education.
And yet.... "He also points to research by the gyms' trade body UK Active which found that for 22 million visits across England between 25 July and 13 September only 78 cases have been reported." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54535679
78 * 100 / 22m = 0.000355%
Would closing gyms really reduce R by 0.1?
Up to 0.1 so probably a fair bit less?
I find these ‘where did you contract covid’ as somewhat meaningless as People really have no idea, shopping is at the top of the list because most people go shopping and forget stopping to talk to someone on the way. Same with restaurants and pubs named as source because that’s where they were going with no evidence to back up the claim.
The Government have to choose which bad headline they want.
They can either have one about overpaid consultants or they can have one about track & trace being a complete and abject failure.
Admittedly they might conspire to get both if they don't resource /scope/sponsor it properly but capping the market when they need skilled and urgent resources in an emergency situation is a recipe for disaster.
What experience do BCG have of managing pandemics?
I don't carry any card for BCG - it's not a consultant I've worked for or with - but they will have highly capable and experienced people in data interrogation, analysis and complex project and portfolio management who've got a track record of quick delivery in very urgent environments.
The public sector simply won't have the number of required resources or skills to do it - and they pay poor salaries, typically 30-40% below what the best people can get in the private sector and don't operate at anything like the same velocity - so are left with little source but to temporarily bring consultants in if they want to get it done.
I am sure they have capable people and certainly more capable than Harding. Over reliance on senior people without a long term stake in a project is a very bad plan though. The track record of govt IT and overpaid consultants makes it pretty clear it is an ineffective policy.
To be fair a lot of that is down to ever changing scope and very bad sponsorship (something only the Government can control) but it will always be the consultants that take the blame.
Don't get me wrong - I don't expect anyone to have much sympathy. No-one much likes consultants and they are very expensive. Far too many are overpaid and useless too. But there are also some exceptional people in there who are very very good.
Ultimately that's why they can command the high salaries and high rates.
The most capable people I have met in business are management consultants so I dont have a problem with consultants generally. It is at the top tier where it is pointless and the biggest waste of money. BCG wont have control over strategy, or be responsible for success or failure. Their senior people are mostly there to sell the services of consultants lower down the food chain.
The strategy is decided by a small cohort of politicians and bureaucrats based on politics. It is then changed several times as the politics changes. There is no point paying fortunes to strategy consultants for each iteration.
The most important thing in being a consultant is to allow yourself to be used as a target to resolve internal disputes that are blocking progress. More than once I have been told what the "answer" is and my job is to deliver it as an outsider. That is what they paid me for.
One set of Sage documents reveals how much individual policies may cut the R number by:
Close all bars, pubs, cafes and restaurants could reduce R by 0.1-0.2 Close all indoor gyms and leisure centres could reduce R by up to 0.1 Closing non-essential retail would have "minimal impact" on transmission Stopping people mixing in homes could reduce R by 0.1-0.2 Working from home reduce R by 0.2-0.4 Closing all schools could reduce R by 0.2-0.5
This is useful information. A shame we only have it now, but still. One can reasonably assume then that the 10pm curfew does very little, and how many restrictions you need to put in place to keep schools open.
It also shows there seem to be areas that are now immune from lockdown whatever the prevalence of the disease - ie going to work and education.
And yet.... "He also points to research by the gyms' trade body UK Active which found that for 22 million visits across England between 25 July and 13 September only 78 cases have been reported." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54535679
One set of Sage documents reveals how much individual policies may cut the R number by:
Close all bars, pubs, cafes and restaurants could reduce R by 0.1-0.2 Close all indoor gyms and leisure centres could reduce R by up to 0.1 Closing non-essential retail would have "minimal impact" on transmission Stopping people mixing in homes could reduce R by 0.1-0.2 Working from home reduce R by 0.2-0.4 Closing all schools could reduce R by 0.2-0.5
This is useful information. A shame we only have it now, but still. One can reasonably assume then that the 10pm curfew does very little, and how many restrictions you need to put in place to keep schools open.
It also shows there seem to be areas that are now immune from lockdown whatever the prevalence of the disease - ie going to work and education.
And yet.... "He also points to research by the gyms' trade body UK Active which found that for 22 million visits across England between 25 July and 13 September only 78 cases have been reported." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54535679
78 * 100 / 22m = 0.000355%
Would closing gyms really reduce R by 0.1?
Up to 0.1 so probably a fair bit less?
I find these ‘where did you contract covid’ as somewhat meaningless as People really have no idea, shopping is at the top of the list because most people go shopping and forget stopping to talk to someone on the way. Same with restaurants and pubs named as source because that’s where they were going with no evidence to back up the claim.
If only we had a world beating Test and Trace system to resolve these questions.
The interesting thing is that on this site a very wide group of people from across the political spectrum can tell what is wrong with the idea of a 2 week circuit break.
Why can't the media ask any questions?
And many of them have got it completely round their necks. "It's not long enough for it to work" and "It's not long enough to see if it's working" for instance, entirely miss the point.
No they don't because they are two separate points.
The latter one for instance is an honest problem. If you shut down for 2 weeks but hospitalisatons are still rising again at the end of the 2 weeks (due to lag) then do you seriously lift the restrictions or extend them? You can say now that you'd lift the restrictions but we have good reason to be sceptical that would happen.
What? I know they are two separate points. I stated them as two separate points. That's what "and" means.
And again you miss the point. We know what works and we know what the incubation period is, so we can calculate the expected effect and lag with some accuracy. Of course there's a chance of a genuine cock up which makes those calculations wrong, but it is far more likely that the people saying "Look, your circuit break didn't work" at the end of two weeks are going to be Allison Pearson grade fuckwits who do not understand lag. And your statement that two weeks is "not long enough" to reduce hospitalisation numbers is a howling fallacy. Infection, and positive testing, are discrete events which map one to one, so one week of effective circuit break results in one week's worth fewer cases further down the line. There isn't a minimum time period a break has to last before this effect starts to happen.
It is very surprising how few here seem to have understood this today.
The interesting thing is that on this site a very wide group of people from across the political spectrum can tell what is wrong with the idea of a 2 week circuit break.
Why can't the media ask any questions?
And many of them have got it completely round their necks. "It's not long enough for it to work" and "It's not long enough to see if it's working" for instance, entirely miss the point.
No they don't because they are two separate points.
The latter one for instance is an honest problem. If you shut down for 2 weeks but hospitalisatons are still rising again at the end of the 2 weeks (due to lag) then do you seriously lift the restrictions or extend them? You can say now that you'd lift the restrictions but we have good reason to be sceptical that would happen.
What? I know they are two separate points. I stated them as two separate points. That's what "and" means.
And again you miss the point. We know what works and we know what the incubation period is, so we can calculate the expected effect and lag with some accuracy. Of course there's a chance of a genuine cock up which makes those calculations wrong, but it is far more likely that the people saying "Look, your circuit break didn't work" at the end of two weeks are going to be Allison Pearson grade fuckwits who do not understand lag. And your statement that two weeks is "not long enough" to reduce hospitalisation numbers is a howling fallacy. Infection, and positive testing, are discrete events which map one to one, so one week of effective circuit break results in one week's worth fewer cases further down the line. There isn't a minimum time period a break has to last before this effect starts to happen.
You say with certainty we know what works...Well the SAGE experts don't even have really have a hande if this idea will have a net positive effect. Their model says it could save as few as 800 deaths from COVID, as great as 107,000.
The interesting thing is that on this site a very wide group of people from across the political spectrum can tell what is wrong with the idea of a 2 week circuit break.
Why can't the media ask any questions?
And many of them have got it completely round their necks. "It's not long enough for it to work" and "It's not long enough to see if it's working" for instance, entirely miss the point.
No they don't because they are two separate points.
The latter one for instance is an honest problem. If you shut down for 2 weeks but hospitalisatons are still rising again at the end of the 2 weeks (due to lag) then do you seriously lift the restrictions or extend them? You can say now that you'd lift the restrictions but we have good reason to be sceptical that would happen.
What? I know they are two separate points. I stated them as two separate points. That's what "and" means.
And again you miss the point. We know what works and we know what the incubation period is, so we can calculate the expected effect and lag with some accuracy. Of course there's a chance of a genuine cock up which makes those calculations wrong, but it is far more likely that the people saying "Look, your circuit break didn't work" at the end of two weeks are going to be Allison Pearson grade fuckwits who do not understand lag. And your statement that two weeks is "not long enough" to reduce hospitalisation numbers is a howling fallacy. Infection, and positive testing, are discrete events which map one to one, so one week of effective circuit break results in one week's worth fewer cases further down the line. There isn't a minimum time period a break has to last before this effect starts to happen.
I know we understand lag, but you don't understand the point.
Yes there are fuckwits but the fuckwits are the bulk of the media. If by the end of the circuit break the numbers are still going up it won't be Pearson making a big deal about it, it will be Robert Peston, Beth Rigby, Keir Starmer, Laura Kuenssberg etc
As for the 'not long enough' factor you're not understanding the big picture. If you close things for a fortnight but then everyone goes crazy beforehand increasing R beforehand, then everyone goes crazy afterwards increasing R afterwards then what's the net effect? Plus then it depends upon what the R goes down to, 2 weeks of R at 0.9 instead of 1.1 isn't going to have a transformative impact, 2 weeks of R at 0.5 instead of 1.4 would.
Finding a way to get R down to 1 and keep it there is what really matters rather than messing around stop/start, stop/start.
The interesting thing is that on this site a very wide group of people from across the political spectrum can tell what is wrong with the idea of a 2 week circuit break.
Why can't the media ask any questions?
And many of them have got it completely round their necks. "It's not long enough for it to work" and "It's not long enough to see if it's working" for instance, entirely miss the point.
No they don't because they are two separate points.
The latter one for instance is an honest problem. If you shut down for 2 weeks but hospitalisatons are still rising again at the end of the 2 weeks (due to lag) then do you seriously lift the restrictions or extend them? You can say now that you'd lift the restrictions but we have good reason to be sceptical that would happen.
What? I know they are two separate points. I stated them as two separate points. That's what "and" means.
And again you miss the point. We know what works and we know what the incubation period is, so we can calculate the expected effect and lag with some accuracy. Of course there's a chance of a genuine cock up which makes those calculations wrong, but it is far more likely that the people saying "Look, your circuit break didn't work" at the end of two weeks are going to be Allison Pearson grade fuckwits who do not understand lag. And your statement that two weeks is "not long enough" to reduce hospitalisation numbers is a howling fallacy. Infection, and positive testing, are discrete events which map one to one, so one week of effective circuit break results in one week's worth fewer cases further down the line. There isn't a minimum time period a break has to last before this effect starts to happen.
I know we understand lag, but you don't understand the point.
Yes there are fuckwits but the fuckwits are the bulk of the media. If by the end of the circuit break the numbers are still going up it won't be Pearson making a big deal about it, it will be Robert Peston, Beth Rigby, Keir Starmer, Laura Kuenssberg etc
As for the 'not long enough' factor you're not understanding the big picture. If you close things for a fortnight but then everyone goes crazy beforehand increasing R beforehand, then everyone goes crazy afterwards increasing R afterwards then what's the net effect? Plus then it depends upon what the R goes down to, 2 weeks of R at 0.9 instead of 1.1 isn't going to have a transformative impact, 2 weeks of R at 0.5 instead of 1.4 would.
Finding a way to get R down to 1 and keep it there is what really matters rather than messing around stop/start, stop/start.
R below 1 is at least one of schools and hospitality shut, probably both.
How can any serious policy decisions be made from this kind predictive modelling.
If it wasn't so fucking serious I'd actually be laughing my head off.
What is the predictive modelling range for the govt decision? Or for your preferred policies?
They will be similarly wide if SAGE considered them because there is a load of uncertainty!
We cant discount policies simply because of uncertainty that will be relevant whatever policy we seek to consider.
0.8-107k it's a joke. It's a prediction that had precisely zero value. We can assume the cost of the two week lockdown is a constant (X) and people saved is a variable (y), the equation the politicians have to make the decision on is cost per person saved, it's how the NHS already operates. If y = 107k then there is a clear and obvious basis for the policy, if y is 800 then there isn't. It also won't follow a perfect bell either so I'd be interested to see what the most likely outcome is after running the simulation a few hundred thousand times.
This prediction reminds me of the University of Washington model where tomorrows death predictions were regularly anywhere between 100 and 2000...for tomorrow !!!...not next month, but the very next day.
There are times in any Government and any politician's career where an important decision has to be taken and the options are bad or worse. Both options seem certain to carry a significant political price - the temptation must be to do nothing but that isn't an option either.
I understand the option of the "circuit breaker" but I'm just not convinced it will do anything more than re-set the cycle. The cases will drop and hopefully the deaths too but as we re-open and ease restrictions back will come the cases and the deaths.
It's easy to follow the "we must do something, this is something, let's do it" school of Government. Too often, the clamour is for some form of action when sometimes the answer is to do nothing. I haven't yet seen the current figures but there seemed some evidence earlier in the week case numbers were flattening in the north so are we seeing the wave roll south or is the virus extending beyond the core groups into wider society and communities?
And yet...
Government's primary aim must be to protect its citizens - the "economic" argument of allowing the virus to do its work cuts right through this. Economies can be re-built, mental health can be restored (with the right support) but death is terminal. Justifying any death on the grounds of "saving the economy" isn't something I can support. Of course, seeing businesses fail, livelihoods shattered and jobs lost is terrible but help can and must be given for those suffering both financial and mental stress.
Nor should the bereaved or those suffering long-term or possibly permanent effects from Covid be forgotten.
As an aside, is it possible Covid-19 is also overwhelming the other influenza viruses in circulation and will become the dominant virus for years to come (hopefully in a weakened form)?
Also remember the head of vaccine task force made it clear, us the plebs ain't getting a vaccine for probably a year....so we aren't trying to hold the tide back for another week or two, we have another year to go.
How can any serious policy decisions be made from this kind predictive modelling.
If it wasn't so fucking serious I'd actually be laughing my head off.
Some of that is the nature of exponentials; the last doubling is absolutely brutal. Conversely, avoiding the last doubling has a massive effect.
However, the other problem with this study is what you compare the circuit break with; let it rip, suck it and see or something else?
It will surely be a simulation based prediction so the range will be based from running it a few thousand times and building a bell curve. The alternative doesn't matter so much in that scenario because it assumes current inputs and patterns are carried forwards vs the simulated scenario of two weeks lockdown.
The Government have to choose which bad headline they want.
They can either have one about overpaid consultants or they can have one about track & trace being a complete and abject failure.
Admittedly they might conspire to get both if they don't resource /scope/sponsor it properly but capping the market when they need skilled and urgent resources in an emergency situation is a recipe for disaster.
What experience do BCG have of managing pandemics?
I don't carry any card for BCG - it's not a consultant I've worked for or with - but they will have highly capable and experienced people in data interrogation, analysis and complex project and portfolio management who've got a track record of quick delivery in very urgent environments.
The public sector simply won't have the number of required resources or skills to do it - and they pay poor salaries, typically 30-40% below what the best people can get in the private sector and don't operate at anything like the same velocity - so are left with little source but to temporarily bring consultants in if they want to get it done.
I am sure they have capable people and certainly more capable than Harding. Over reliance on senior people without a long term stake in a project is a very bad plan though. The track record of govt IT and overpaid consultants makes it pretty clear it is an ineffective policy.
To be fair a lot of that is down to ever changing scope and very bad sponsorship (something only the Government can control) but it will always be the consultants that take the blame.
Don't get me wrong - I don't expect anyone to have much sympathy. No-one much likes consultants and they are very expensive. Far too many are overpaid and useless too. But there are also some exceptional people in there who are very very good.
Ultimately that's why they can command the high salaries and high rates.
The most capable people I have met in business are management consultants so I dont have a problem with consultants generally. It is at the top tier where it is pointless and the biggest waste of money. BCG wont have control over strategy, or be responsible for success or failure. Their senior people are mostly there to sell the services of consultants lower down the food chain.
The strategy is decided by a small cohort of politicians and bureaucrats based on politics. It is then changed several times as the politics changes. There is no point paying fortunes to strategy consultants for each iteration.
The most important thing in being a consultant is to allow yourself to be used as a target to resolve internal disputes that are blocking progress. More than once I have been told what the "answer" is and my job is to deliver it as an outsider. That is what they paid me for.
Just how many people here are consultants? (I confess to being one.)
Consultants are useful at a time like this since there is a need to build/scale capability quickly and the civil service/HMG does have some good people but it would be hard to pull together at speed without crashing other bits of the public sector.
Having said which, I am surprised they are using BCG. This isn't a strategy assignment, its delivery , and even if you went to the big brand names you would expect to be paying several times less than £7k a day for very good people.
The interesting thing is that on this site a very wide group of people from across the political spectrum can tell what is wrong with the idea of a 2 week circuit break.
Why can't the media ask any questions?
And many of them have got it completely round their necks. "It's not long enough for it to work" and "It's not long enough to see if it's working" for instance, entirely miss the point.
No they don't because they are two separate points.
The latter one for instance is an honest problem. If you shut down for 2 weeks but hospitalisatons are still rising again at the end of the 2 weeks (due to lag) then do you seriously lift the restrictions or extend them? You can say now that you'd lift the restrictions but we have good reason to be sceptical that would happen.
What? I know they are two separate points. I stated them as two separate points. That's what "and" means.
And again you miss the point. We know what works and we know what the incubation period is, so we can calculate the expected effect and lag with some accuracy. Of course there's a chance of a genuine cock up which makes those calculations wrong, but it is far more likely that the people saying "Look, your circuit break didn't work" at the end of two weeks are going to be Allison Pearson grade fuckwits who do not understand lag. And your statement that two weeks is "not long enough" to reduce hospitalisation numbers is a howling fallacy. Infection, and positive testing, are discrete events which map one to one, so one week of effective circuit break results in one week's worth fewer cases further down the line. There isn't a minimum time period a break has to last before this effect starts to happen.
I know we understand lag, but you don't understand the point.
Yes there are fuckwits but the fuckwits are the bulk of the media. If by the end of the circuit break the numbers are still going up it won't be Pearson making a big deal about it, it will be Robert Peston, Beth Rigby, Keir Starmer, Laura Kuenssberg etc
As for the 'not long enough' factor you're not understanding the big picture. If you close things for a fortnight but then everyone goes crazy beforehand increasing R beforehand, then everyone goes crazy afterwards increasing R afterwards then what's the net effect? Plus then it depends upon what the R goes down to, 2 weeks of R at 0.9 instead of 1.1 isn't going to have a transformative impact, 2 weeks of R at 0.5 instead of 1.4 would.
Finding a way to get R down to 1 and keep it there is what really matters rather than messing around stop/start, stop/start.
R below 1 is at least one of schools and hospitality shut, probably both.
So you think although R is already coming down towards 1. Whether it will get to 1 is another question but it is definitely coming down already.
How can any serious policy decisions be made from this kind predictive modelling.
If it wasn't so fucking serious I'd actually be laughing my head off.
What is the predictive modelling range for the govt decision? Or for your preferred policies?
They will be similarly wide if SAGE considered them because there is a load of uncertainty!
We cant discount policies simply because of uncertainty that will be relevant whatever policy we seek to consider.
0.8-107k it's a joke. It's a prediction that had precisely zero value. We can assume the cost of the two week lockdown is a constant (X) and people saved is a variable (y), the equation the politicians have to make the decision on is cost per person saved, it's how the NHS already operates. If y = 107k then there is a clear and obvious basis for the policy, if y is 800 then there isn't. It also won't follow a perfect bell either so I'd be interested to see what the most likely outcome is after running the simulation a few hundred thousand times.
Given the way the virus spreads its obvious that the median outcomes are much much closer to the lower boundary than the higher boundary. If you are multiplying lots of volatile factors together then getting extreme high outcomes within a confidence range happens, but they are unlikely. Id be very surprised if the expected number of lives saved per 2 weeks is 10k, let alone 100k but could certainly believe that the 100k is within a 99% confidence interval (not sure what they use).
This prediction reminds me of the University of Washington model where tomorrows death predictions were regularly anywhere between 100 and 2000...for tomorrow !!!...not next month, but the very next day.
The only good thing about that model is that it was so bad it spurred a whole load of other organisations into doing some modelling.
This is more realistic...the two options are either say every x weeks we shutdown, with periods of more normality or you go more like sweden and say these are a set of long term rules, which we won't relax until everybody is vaccinated.
Also remember the head of vaccine task force made it clear, us the plebs ain't getting a vaccine for probably a year....so we aren't trying to hold the tide back for another week or two, we have another year to go.
She didn’t say that at all.
She said the vaccine would be prioritised to the the most vulnerable, which is as it should be.
This is more realistic...the two options are either say every x weeks we shutdown, with periods of more normality or you go more like sweden and say these are a set of long term rules, which we won't relax until everybody is vaccinated.
That is the Imperial College adaptive triggering of supression measures which was in the document published mid March. Ferguson gets a lot of criticism from the nutters, but he we are on a path to doing more or less what was suggested right at the start.
Also remember the head of vaccine task force made it clear, us the plebs ain't getting a vaccine for probably a year....so we aren't trying to hold the tide back for another week or two, we have another year to go.
She didn’t say that at all.
She said the vaccine would be prioritised to the the most vulnerable, which is as it should be.
Of course...but the timeline we are talking about really is of the order of 12 months before we could possibly return to normality.
Government's primary aim must be to protect its citizens - the "economic" argument of allowing the virus to do its work cuts right through this. Economies can be re-built, mental health can be restored (with the right support) but death is terminal. Justifying any death on the grounds of "saving the economy" isn't something I can support. Of course, seeing businesses fail, livelihoods shattered and jobs lost is terrible but help can and must be given for those suffering both financial and mental stress.
Nor should the bereaved or those suffering long-term or possibly permanent effects from Covid be forgotten.
Then it it never right for human society to exit lockdown, if it means more people die of influenza and other endemic illnesses.
I know we understand lag, but you don't understand the point.
Yes there are fuckwits but the fuckwits are the bulk of the media. If by the end of the circuit break the numbers are still going up it won't be Pearson making a big deal about it, it will be Robert Peston, Beth Rigby, Keir Starmer, Laura Kuenssberg etc
As for the 'not long enough' factor you're not understanding the big picture. If you close things for a fortnight but then everyone goes crazy beforehand increasing R beforehand, then everyone goes crazy afterwards increasing R afterwards then what's the net effect? Plus then it depends upon what the R goes down to, 2 weeks of R at 0.9 instead of 1.1 isn't going to have a transformative impact, 2 weeks of R at 0.5 instead of 1.4 would.
Finding a way to get R down to 1 and keep it there is what really matters rather than messing around stop/start, stop/start.
The "everyone goes crazy" point is the first sensible argument against circuit-breakers that I've heard amongst all this noise. However, it's also an argument against the status quo of constantly changing tiers. This is about clarity and trust. Mass gatherings before/after lockdowns only started to be a problem when people lost trust in what they were being asked to do. That will be hard to regain, but something like Nick Palmer's proposal would be a good start.
The media argument is not a serious one. This can easily be headed off by spelling out what exactly will happen and why and putting it in law, ensuring the detailed policy is associated as much with the opposition as the government (which Starmer is clearly willing to do to as long as Johnson doesn't play games), and very clearly telling the media *beforehand* that some of the key numbers won't have come down much, if at all, when lockdown is lifted, because of the lag.
"Finding a way to get R down to 1 and keep it there is what really matters rather than messing around stop/start, stop/start" - Why on earth do you say that? What really matters is saving lives while causing as little harm to the economy and people's mental health as possible. If the way to achieve this involves having an R that fluctuates, so be it.
I still can't get my head around the lack of effort ever in trying to contain the importation of new cases....we really do have still have the hosepipe turned on and wondering why the water is shooting everywhere.
Also remember the head of vaccine task force made it clear, us the plebs ain't getting a vaccine for probably a year....so we aren't trying to hold the tide back for another week or two, we have another year to go.
She didn’t say that at all.
She said the vaccine would be prioritised to the the most vulnerable, which is as it should be.
Listened to her on the radio for about 15 mins this morning, brief summary would be:
Her timeline was approval possible this year, more likely 2021, and by end of 2021 we would be not yet be back to normal but closer to normal than the current situation.
Probably have enough orders to vaccinate the country but that depends on which are approved. It might not be particularly effective or long lasting but better than nothing given alternatives. Future iterations should be more effective, but could be an ongoing battle if the virus mutates once we start mass vaccinations. Treatments just as important as vaccine in getting back to normal.
The Government have to choose which bad headline they want.
They can either have one about overpaid consultants or they can have one about track & trace being a complete and abject failure.
Admittedly they might conspire to get both if they don't resource /scope/sponsor it properly but capping the market when they need skilled and urgent resources in an emergency situation is a recipe for disaster.
What experience do BCG have of managing pandemics?
I don't carry any card for BCG - it's not a consultant I've worked for or with - but they will have highly capable and experienced people in data interrogation, analysis and complex project and portfolio management who've got a track record of quick delivery in very urgent environments.
The public sector simply won't have the number of required resources or skills to do it - and they pay poor salaries, typically 30-40% below what the best people can get in the private sector and don't operate at anything like the same velocity - so are left with little source but to temporarily bring consultants in if they want to get it done.
I am sure they have capable people and certainly more capable than Harding. Over reliance on senior people without a long term stake in a project is a very bad plan though. The track record of govt IT and overpaid consultants makes it pretty clear it is an ineffective policy.
To be fair a lot of that is down to ever changing scope and very bad sponsorship (something only the Government can control) but it will always be the consultants that take the blame.
Don't get me wrong - I don't expect anyone to have much sympathy. No-one much likes consultants and they are very expensive. Far too many are overpaid and useless too. But there are also some exceptional people in there who are very very good.
Ultimately that's why they can command the high salaries and high rates.
The most capable people I have met in business are management consultants so I dont have a problem with consultants generally. It is at the top tier where it is pointless and the biggest waste of money. BCG wont have control over strategy, or be responsible for success or failure. Their senior people are mostly there to sell the services of consultants lower down the food chain.
The strategy is decided by a small cohort of politicians and bureaucrats based on politics. It is then changed several times as the politics changes. There is no point paying fortunes to strategy consultants for each iteration.
The most important thing in being a consultant is to allow yourself to be used as a target to resolve internal disputes that are blocking progress. More than once I have been told what the "answer" is and my job is to deliver it as an outsider. That is what they paid me for.
Just how many people here are consultants? (I confess to being one.)
Consultants are useful at a time like this since there is a need to build/scale capability quickly and the civil service/HMG does have some good people but it would be hard to pull together at speed without crashing other bits of the public sector.
Having said which, I am surprised they are using BCG. This isn't a strategy assignment, its delivery , and even if you went to the big brand names you would expect to be paying several times less than £7k a day for very good people.
As a newly minted member of the consulting profession, agree with everything that's been said on the subject.
Mystified as anyone as to why BCG are on this. Surely we pay senior civil servants and politicians to make the strategic calls. Consultants can help with management and implementation, ideally in the short term.
I still can't get my head around the lack of effort ever in trying to contain the importation of new cases....we really do have still have the hosepipe turned on and wondering why the water is shooting everywhere.
And imposing severe domestic restrictions on the economy to cut the R within the country. It really is such a surreal set of events.
Of the 0.2-0.5 potential drop in R from closing schools, how much do we think that is split by primary and secondary schools? I suspect the latter drives most of that, which in turn may suggest another option for differential policy.
I know we understand lag, but you don't understand the point.
Yes there are fuckwits but the fuckwits are the bulk of the media. If by the end of the circuit break the numbers are still going up it won't be Pearson making a big deal about it, it will be Robert Peston, Beth Rigby, Keir Starmer, Laura Kuenssberg etc
As for the 'not long enough' factor you're not understanding the big picture. If you close things for a fortnight but then everyone goes crazy beforehand increasing R beforehand, then everyone goes crazy afterwards increasing R afterwards then what's the net effect? Plus then it depends upon what the R goes down to, 2 weeks of R at 0.9 instead of 1.1 isn't going to have a transformative impact, 2 weeks of R at 0.5 instead of 1.4 would.
Finding a way to get R down to 1 and keep it there is what really matters rather than messing around stop/start, stop/start.
The "everyone goes crazy" point is the first sensible argument against circuit-breakers that I've heard amongst all this noise. However, it's also an argument against the status quo of constantly changing tiers. This is about clarity and trust. Mass gatherings before/after lockdowns only started to be a problem when people lost trust in what they were being asked to do. That will be hard to regain, but something like Nick Palmer's proposal would be a good start.
The media argument is not a serious one. This can easily be headed off by spelling out what exactly will happen and why and putting it in law, ensuring the detailed policy is associated as much with the opposition as the government (which Starmer is clearly willing to do to as long as Johnson doesn't play games), and very clearly telling the media *beforehand* that some of the key numbers won't have come down much, if at all, when lockdown is lifted, because of the lag.
"Finding a way to get R down to 1 and keep it there is what really matters rather than messing around stop/start, stop/start" - Why on earth do you say that? What really matters is saving lives while causing as little harm to the economy and people's mental health as possible. If the way to achieve this involves having an R that fluctuates, so be it.
Businesses can't operate on a start/stop, start/stop basis that's why.
If pubs and restaurants are expected to throw away all their stock every other month, lose all their business for that period, then replace all their stock and get back up and running again only to have to shut all down again a little bit later . . . its madness. That's no way to operate and would need massive support. Pubs would be better off shutting until the Spring than stopping and starting like that - and that would suppress R much more.
Twitter is actively preventing links to an NY Post story about Biden's son from being tweeted.
I have to say it is rather funny that certain outlets are immediately going on are the documents fake, how did they get them, was it illegal...where as trump tax returns, all good, no twitter verification needed and no need to worry about how they obtained them.
Comments
The latter one for instance is an honest problem. If you shut down for 2 weeks but hospitalisatons are still rising again at the end of the 2 weeks (due to lag) then do you seriously lift the restrictions or extend them? You can say now that you'd lift the restrictions but we have good reason to be sceptical that would happen.
RCP final forecast Clinton 272 Trump 262.
That final forecast is when pollsters and polling websites put their head on the block and can be judged, on that basis in 2016 RCP got closer to the result than 538 did
- WFH where possible (is this not the case already?)
- Close Unis/FE
- Close schools.
Household interactions are about as limited as they usefully can be. Closing non-essential retail and hospitality has a marginal effect. Universities need to be closed again somehow without distributing infected students into the community. Which leaves schools if we still need to get to R=1.Schools, rightly IMO, are given priority, but aren't sacrosanct if R is above 1. Which is where circuit breakers come in. They are the most effective way of partially closing schools.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1316440748603080706?s=19
The strategy is decided by a small cohort of politicians and bureaucrats based on politics. It is then changed several times as the politics changes. There is no point paying fortunes to strategy consultants for each iteration.
Ok chaps, whats a good idea to squish the old sombrero, cos the warning lighting are flashing...
A 2 week circuit breaker...
Cripes chaps, that sounds like one of those lockdowns again, and how much squishness do we get for this?
We don't know...somewhere between 800 and 107,000 saved lives.
Great, we save between 80,000 and 100,000, Dom fire up the autocue machine....
No 800..
What, 800...are you sure..
Well...
And if i do this circuit breaker thingy, when will know if it has worked.
A month afterwards.
What...so i have to announce the end of it, when we don't know if it has worked.
Well...that up to you PM...but announced cases and deaths will probably still be increasing..
So, you want me to implement a policy that net might not save any lives and then have to announce the end of it while cases are probably still going up and we might later find we stopped it too soon and caused more deaths....
Yes..
Golly.....Dom...what do you think?
The 28.6% happened.
If you don't understand that, that's your ignorance not anyone else's.
Wednesday brings another onslaught of polling from across the Pond.
I'll start with the State polls this evening - two new polls from North Carolina confirm the narrow Biden lead while contradictory polls from Florida with a 2-point Biden lead in one balanced by Trafalgar putting Trump up by two.
Solid Biden leads in Michigan and New Hampshire and a 2-point advantage in Georgia.
Georgia and Florida remain TCTC in my view so I've made no change to my current projection.
I'm not quite sure why Trafalgar felt a poll for Louisiana was a good idea. Trump won by 20 in 2016 and Trafalgar now shown a 16-point Trump advantage (54-38). Louisiana hasn't voted Democrat since 1996 and it's not going to this time either.
Two national polls tonight - Rasmussen has Biden up 50-45 while Economist/YouGov has Biden ahead 52-42.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/1ace2lgidt/econTabReport.pdf
In truth, the weekly YouGov poll hasn't changed much despite all Trump's antics. The detail makes interesting reading - among men, Biden leads by four and among women by fourteen.
It's not for me to tell OGH he's wrong but the article claiming it was women where Trump was doing badly was wrong - Trump has lost more support among men than women (which raises some interesting questions).
Trump leads by 5 among White voters - a group he won by 21 last time so that's an 8% swing. To be fair, Trump is doing slightly better among Hispanic voters than he did in 2016 picking up a 2% swing. That might help a little in Florida and perhaps Nevada and Arizona but as a share of the overall national voting population, not so much.
The strength Biden has among white men is, I believe, helping him in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania which are three vital seats.
Caveats: - it ain't over yet and if a week is a long time in politics, three weeks is a very very long time. Among those who have already voted, however, Biden has a huge advantage. Independent voters are 41-37 for Biden but contain the largest bloc of Undecided voters so that could obviously swing back to Trump.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html#!
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html#!
https://gsy.bailiwickexpress.com/gsy/news/uk-gearing-force-fisheries-deal-upon-us/
78 * 100 / 22m = 0.000355%
Would closing gyms really reduce R by 0.1?
Thanks JRM.
https://twitter.com/AkashPaun/status/1316448514956824578
I do enjoy these nightly updates from you Stodge.
The MoE on a 7% poll lead looks like landslide time.
@HYUFD, it looks like your boy is getting a hell of a beating!
And again you miss the point. We know what works and we know what the incubation period is, so we can calculate the expected effect and lag with some accuracy. Of course there's a chance of a genuine cock up which makes those calculations wrong, but it is far more likely that the people saying "Look, your circuit break didn't work" at the end of two weeks are going to be Allison Pearson grade fuckwits who do not understand lag. And your statement that two weeks is "not long enough" to reduce hospitalisation numbers is a howling fallacy. Infection, and positive testing, are discrete events which map one to one, so one week of effective circuit break results in one week's worth fewer cases further down the line. There isn't a minimum time period a break has to last before this effect starts to happen.
I'm not sure that they could even apply. Historically I guess what you do is become so annoying that our Monarch's forces are instructed to 'visit'.
England hasn't changed it's borders for a while.
British stuff is different, a much more dramatic picture, but also a wider shared theme.
Huge variation in polling for the Georgia Senate election - Survey USA has Perdue up 3 while Quinnipiac has Ossoff up by 6.
How can any serious policy decisions be made from this kind predictive modelling.
If it wasn't so fucking serious I'd actually be laughing my head off.
https://www.biopharma-reporter.com/Article/2020/10/12/UK-joins-global-trial-to-test-BCG-vaccine-against-COVID-19
They will be similarly wide if SAGE considered them because there is a load of uncertainty!
We cant discount policies simply because of uncertainty that will be relevant whatever policy we seek to consider.
Yes there are fuckwits but the fuckwits are the bulk of the media. If by the end of the circuit break the numbers are still going up it won't be Pearson making a big deal about it, it will be Robert Peston, Beth Rigby, Keir Starmer, Laura Kuenssberg etc
As for the 'not long enough' factor you're not understanding the big picture. If you close things for a fortnight but then everyone goes crazy beforehand increasing R beforehand, then everyone goes crazy afterwards increasing R afterwards then what's the net effect? Plus then it depends upon what the R goes down to, 2 weeks of R at 0.9 instead of 1.1 isn't going to have a transformative impact, 2 weeks of R at 0.5 instead of 1.4 would.
Finding a way to get R down to 1 and keep it there is what really matters rather than messing around stop/start, stop/start.
However, the other problem with this study is what you compare the circuit break with; let it rip, suck it and see or something else?
I understand the option of the "circuit breaker" but I'm just not convinced it will do anything more than re-set the cycle. The cases will drop and hopefully the deaths too but as we re-open and ease restrictions back will come the cases and the deaths.
It's easy to follow the "we must do something, this is something, let's do it" school of Government. Too often, the clamour is for some form of action when sometimes the answer is to do nothing. I haven't yet seen the current figures but there seemed some evidence earlier in the week case numbers were flattening in the north so are we seeing the wave roll south or is the virus extending beyond the core groups into wider society and communities?
And yet...
Government's primary aim must be to protect its citizens - the "economic" argument of allowing the virus to do its work cuts right through this. Economies can be re-built, mental health can be restored (with the right support) but death is terminal. Justifying any death on the grounds of "saving the economy" isn't something I can support. Of course, seeing businesses fail, livelihoods shattered and jobs lost is terrible but help can and must be given for those suffering both financial and mental stress.
Nor should the bereaved or those suffering long-term or possibly permanent effects from Covid be forgotten.
As an aside, is it possible Covid-19 is also overwhelming the other influenza viruses in circulation and will become the dominant virus for years to come (hopefully in a weakened form)?
Consultants are useful at a time like this since there is a need to build/scale capability quickly and the civil service/HMG does have some good people but it would be hard to pull together at speed without crashing other bits of the public sector.
Having said which, I am surprised they are using BCG. This isn't a strategy assignment, its delivery , and even if you went to the big brand names you would expect to be paying several times less than £7k a day for very good people.
He needs to be dropped.
The key battleground states now seem to be Florida, Iowa, Georgia and perhaps Ohio and Nevada and as a longer shot Alaska.
She said the vaccine would be prioritised to the the most vulnerable, which is as it should be.
The media argument is not a serious one. This can easily be headed off by spelling out what exactly will happen and why and putting it in law, ensuring the detailed policy is associated as much with the opposition as the government (which Starmer is clearly willing to do to as long as Johnson doesn't play games), and very clearly telling the media *beforehand* that some of the key numbers won't have come down much, if at all, when lockdown is lifted, because of the lag.
"Finding a way to get R down to 1 and keep it there is what really matters rather than messing around stop/start, stop/start" - Why on earth do you say that? What really matters is saving lives while causing as little harm to the economy and people's mental health as possible. If the way to achieve this involves having an R that fluctuates, so be it.
Her timeline was approval possible this year, more likely 2021, and by end of 2021 we would be not yet be back to normal but closer to normal than the current situation.
Probably have enough orders to vaccinate the country but that depends on which are approved. It might not be particularly effective or long lasting but better than nothing given alternatives. Future iterations should be more effective, but could be an ongoing battle if the virus mutates once we start mass vaccinations. Treatments just as important as vaccine in getting back to normal.
Mystified as anyone as to why BCG are on this. Surely we pay senior civil servants and politicians to make the strategic calls. Consultants can help with management and implementation, ideally in the short term.
https://twitter.com/Effiedeans/status/1316392274717220864?s=20
If pubs and restaurants are expected to throw away all their stock every other month, lose all their business for that period, then replace all their stock and get back up and running again only to have to shut all down again a little bit later . . . its madness. That's no way to operate and would need massive support. Pubs would be better off shutting until the Spring than stopping and starting like that - and that would suppress R much more.
Threatening to sue the government for imposing a lockdown that's not as harsh as the lockdown he supports as long as everyone gets it.
Hmmn.