"We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions".
This is the end of SAGE isn't it?
They are done with this admittance.
What's wrong with that? It's not in itself an unreasonable statement, or is there some context I am missing? Modelling, for instance, a scenario of 100% 90 year olds living each on their own without seeing anyone else would be a perfectly logical possibility, but it would be of no practical use and therefore not worth the time (except as a teaching example as part of a step in developing understanding of modelling).
As I understand what the Spectator seem to have unearthed is they only use inputs to models that lead to scary scenarios because, they seem to think, it is only those models that produce outputs which show a decision needs to be made.
It is fecking Alice in Wonderland frankly.
But that doesn't make sense. They wouldn't know what the output was till they did the input. The Speccy seems to be accusing them of picking between results.
Of course you know what the output will be by the inputs, at least for the people who write the model, you know the weightings of the inputs.
Doesn't work that way - the maths can be incredibly sensitive to input changes. (So I recall from my younger days studying, inter aliis, population dynamics and population genetics, and doing a course project on the latter, ironically on host-parasite genetics).
If that's the case, the model should come with a big health warning attached that says very clearly: Output is very sensitive to these specific inputs; also these inputs are very uncertain, model output is hence also very uncertain, so proceed with caution and results cannot necessarily be relied upon.
Part of my scepticism over the results being presented is that it is not particularly clear that the validation work needed to guide the above thinking has been done.
Edit: also, a big part of the validation process is sufficient sensitivity testing that you know exactly which inputs have what sensitivity, so that you can predict roughly what the model will do when they are changed. The sorts of non-linear models you list can make that process much harder, but there's no reason I can think of for the COVID models to have the sort of feedback loops which make that the case.
I see very little evidence that the split on this site has really changed, the same people are pro lockdown as a year ago.
I'm not I'm afraid. There really was no alternative last year. It was the right, indeed the only option. Now. Not sure of that at all. Can a lockdown restrict Omicron given its transmissibility? Not convinced. Will a lockdown be followed by enough folk to be effective even if it is containable? Not convinced. Will there be so many hospitalised that the NHS is overwhelmed? Not convinced.
On all these points I am convincable. I have no ideological axe to grind here. But I don't think the case has been made as of yet.
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
But, and don't take this the wrong way, but when I was on her 48 hours or so ago weren't you the one who was most concerned, and encouraging a lockdown?
Maybe I have miss-remembered? or has the weight of evidence that Omicron is very milled changed your mind?
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
I see very little evidence that the split on this site has really changed, the same people are pro lockdown as a year ago.
The split may not have changed but I'd be surprised if all of us haven't been on a bit of a journey as to our views. Unless you're the Piers Corbyn, or Steve Baker edges of our society then I think that must be true.
I genuinely don't really know my own opinion now - there's not so much science emerging it seems. My hunch is that Javid is weak and wobbly (just because that's my judgement of him beforehand).
I hope you are well - and thank you for your previous kind suggestion of meeting me. I simply cannot ask you to buy me food or a drink but I appreciate the sentiment all the same.
I am anti-lockdown in the sense it is bad for my health and bad for businesses like @Cyclefree's daughter, for whom I have a lot of sympathy.
But I am instinctively pro protecting and saving lives, I think in many ways that informs my politics as one of compassion and love and that is the person I try to be. So that is how I see things.
I hope we do not need a lockdown - but I do think it is far too early to be saying everything is ok. Because we've been down this road before with Delta. And I remember having the same arguments with Phil and others this time last year.
904,598 booster vaccinations in 🇬🇧 exc Wales yesterday (530,086 the previous Saturday)
🏴 830,403 🏴 64,081 NI 10,114
When Welsh data is added in (tomorrow) it's almost certain yesterday will turn out to be the first day that more than a million vaccines were given out - figure excluding Wales is c. 987k I think.
I see very little evidence that the split on this site has really changed, the same people are pro lockdown as a year ago.
The split may not have changed but I'd be surprised if all of us haven't been on a bit of a journey as to our views. Unless you're the Piers Corbyn, or Steve Baker edges of our society then I think that must be true.
I genuinely don't really know my own opinion now - there's not so much science emerging it seems. My hunch is that Javid is weak and wobbly (just because that's my judgement of him beforehand).
I hope you are well - and thank you for your previous kind suggestion of meeting me. I simply cannot ask you to buy me food or a drink but I appreciate the sentiment all the same.
I am anti-lockdown in the sense it is bad for my health and bad for businesses like @Cyclefree's daughter, for whom I have a lot of sympathy.
But I am instinctively pro protecting and saving lives, I think in many ways that informs my politics as one of compassion and love and that is the person I try to be. So that is how I see things.
I hope we do not need a lockdown - but I do think it is far too early to be saying everything is ok. Because we've been down this road before with Delta. And I remember having the same arguments with Phil and others this time last year.
Was there the same positive pieces of news regarding severity about Delta at the time? I only remember that being viewed as a negative development.
I see very little evidence that the split on this site has really changed, the same people are pro lockdown as a year ago.
I'm not I'm afraid. There really was no alternative last year. It was the right, indeed the only option. Now. Not sure of that at all. Can a lockdown restrict Omicron given its transmissibility? Not convinced. Will a lockdown be followed by enough folk to be effective even if it is containable? Not convinced. Will there be so many hospitalised that the NHS is overwhelmed? Not convinced.
On all these points I am convincable. I have no ideological axe to grind here. But I don't think the case has been made as of yet.
Agree. More or less my own position.
Hope your recovery is continuing smoothly.
To be honest I think this is where I am too - but I am instinctively pro lockdown as above.
904,598 booster vaccinations in 🇬🇧 exc Wales yesterday (530,086 the previous Saturday)
🏴 830,403 🏴 64,081 NI 10,114
When Welsh data is added in (tomorrow) it's almost certain yesterday will turn out to be the first day that more than a million vaccines were given out - figure excluding Wales is c. 987k I think.
In particular the chart showing admissions in London so far tracking the summer 'wave' not last winter's one. The argument for lockdown appears to be the need to be ahead of the curve. Only trouble is we don't know what sort of curve it will be. So it really comes down to a safety first argument.
Which is why we're all entitled to be concerned about a permanent cycle of lockdowns, as follows:
1. Scary new variant 2. Models (which may or may not be any good) suggest scary new variant *might* destroy NHS 3. Panic panic panic panic panic, lockdown to be on the safe side
Then back to 1., and repeat until dead.
We're almost certainly going to end up suffering a whole raft of new restrictions, if not this week then immediately after Christmas, so all we can do is hope that Omicron turns out to be so transmissible that restrictions are revealed to be useless against it, and will therefore be dumped once and for all. This will go on forever otherwise.
The rationale for a lockdown is weaker for this wave than it was for previous ones. Omicron is already rife and it spreads so fast that to a large extent the script is written. It's going to be (one of a range of) bads and will be over quite quickly. Public support for a lockdown is far from solid, the politics is difficult too. So, putting this together, I conclude that you and the other posters of your mindset are worrying about the wrong thing. Either there won't be a lockdown or if there is it'll be a short one. The thing to worry about is the NHS. Will it manage to struggle through?
I see very little evidence that the split on this site has really changed, the same people are pro lockdown as a year ago.
Nonsense.
This time last year, I was incredibly anxious as I was trying to convince my family not to all meet up for Christmas. I was having to explain to them that getting COVID at the same time as lots of other people was a bad idea and we just needed to get the parents jabbed.
This year we’re making up for last year, whatever the politicians say.
904,598 booster vaccinations in 🇬🇧 exc Wales yesterday (530,086 the previous Saturday)
🏴 830,403 🏴 64,081 NI 10,114
When Welsh data is added in (tomorrow) it's almost certain yesterday will turn out to be the first day that more than a million vaccines were given out - figure excluding Wales is c. 987k I think.
Think we'll hit the million mark this week and then it will be after new year's day before we get back to that level.
It does seem unlikely that combination of capacity and demand that will be able to get much past 1 million a day. And as a result won't hit their aspiration.
I am sure the government will get grief for this "failure". Perhaps they should have just set the target as capacity of over million jabs a day.
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
But, and don't take this the wrong way, but when I was on her 48 hours or so ago weren't you the one who was most concerned, and encouraging a lockdown?
Maybe I have miss-remembered? or has the weight of evidence that Omicron is very milled changed your mind?
You’ve misremembered. In my hyperbolic-drunken way I identified Omicron early on as a big threat, and I predicted governments would react allergically to it, up to and including lockdown
I also predicted lockdown for the UK. I have never, however, advocated a new lockdown. There was not enough evidence available to me. I was agnostic, and awaited the numbers
The first promising data from SA didn’t persuade me. Quite. SA is too different. But the last few days we have the same cheering data from NYC and now London. Omicron really is milder. Shorter stays in hospital. Vaccines still work. Hospitals are NOT overwhelmed and believe they can cope - their words
Now I am persuaded. As things stand lockdown is not justified.
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
So number of boosters has stalled in the 800,000s per day and actually fell today… does this reflect a capacity constraint or is demand beginning to fall back after the opening-up-to-all at the beginning of the week… what more can the Government do to scare encourage more to do the right thing…
or that Wales didn't announce their stats today? and that if you go to https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations and look at boosters data, you'll see that 10 of the 11 weeks show the same pattern.
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
But, and don't take this the wrong way, but when I was on her 48 hours or so ago weren't you the one who was most concerned, and encouraging a lockdown?
Maybe I have miss-remembered? or has the weight of evidence that Omicron is very milled changed your mind?
You’ve misremembered. In my hyperbolic-drunken way I identified Omicron early on as a big threat, and I predicted governments would react allergically to it, up to and including lockdown
I also predicted lockdown for the UK. I have never, however, advocated a new lockdown. There was not enough evidence available to me. I was agnostic, and awaited the numbers
The first promising data from SA didn’t persuade me. Quite. SA is too different. But the last few days we have the same cheering data from NYC and now London. Omicron really is milder. Shorter stays in hospital. Vaccines still work. Hospitals are NOT overwhelmed and believe they can cope - their words
Now I am persuaded. As things stand lockdown is not justified.
So number of boosters has stalled in the 800,000s per day and actually fell today… does this reflect a capacity constraint or is demand beginning to fall back after the opening-up-to-all at the beginning of the week… what more can the Government do to scare encourage more to do the right thing…
or that Wales didn't announce their stats today? and that if you go to https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations and look at boosters data, you'll see that 10 of the 11 weeks show the same pattern.
and that pattern returns. SHOCKED.
Don't. Chase. Daily. Figures.
It was busy enough at the Roman Way Hotel in Cannock. In fact I think I was very lucky, I just hit a lull with hardly any queueing. When I left they were queueing back pretty well to the main road.
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
"We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions".
This is the end of SAGE isn't it?
They are done with this admittance.
What's wrong with that? It's not in itself an unreasonable statement, or is there some context I am missing? Modelling, for instance, a scenario of 100% 90 year olds living each on their own without seeing anyone else would be a perfectly logical possibility, but it would be of no practical use and therefore not worth the time (except as a teaching example as part of a step in developing understanding of modelling).
As I understand what the Spectator seem to have unearthed is they only use inputs to models that lead to scary scenarios because, they seem to think, it is only those models that produce outputs which show a decision needs to be made.
It is fecking Alice in Wonderland frankly.
But that doesn't make sense. They wouldn't know what the output was till they did the input. The Speccy seems to be accusing them of picking between results.
Of course you know what the output will be by the inputs, at least for the people who write the model, you know the weightings of the inputs.
Doesn't work that way - the maths can be incredibly sensitive to input changes. (So I recall from my younger days studying, inter aliis, population dynamics and population genetics, and doing a course project on the latter, ironically on host-parasite genetics).
I don't know what any of that means - goodness me there are some smart people on this website
Just that MaxPB was claiming the scientists could tell what the results would be before they put the data in. Which doesn't feel right to me at all.
Also - some PBers have been complaining that the scientists were producing models with huge error ranges. Well, that in itself strongly suggests that the scientists aren't picking the results. If they wanted lockdown, they'd ...
(It's a different matter to recommend action based on those results - but on the precautionary principle, given the time delays involved, it makes sense to assume things will be at the shittier end of the spectrum till more data come in that can be used to refine the models.)
So you think the scientist would have no idea what would happen to the output of the model if they used a higher rate of transmissibility, or lower vaccine effectiveness?
Oh, those things aren't linear at all. Exponential behaviour for a start, which amplifies the errors in the data one usese for input. One has to use a range of data especially in early days like these, so one would end up with an even greater (proportionately) range of result.
And that is excluding the really bizarre results of higher values under which one could (and I did, in my student research study) crank up the parameter of infection level and end up with cyclical or chaotic behaviour, for instance.
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
But, and don't take this the wrong way, but when I was on her 48 hours or so ago weren't you the one who was most concerned, and encouraging a lockdown?
Maybe I have miss-remembered? or has the weight of evidence that Omicron is very milled changed your mind?
You’ve misremembered. In my hyperbolic-drunken way I identified Omicron early on as a big threat, and I predicted governments would react allergically to it, up to and including lockdown
I also predicted lockdown for the UK. I have never, however, advocated a new lockdown. There was not enough evidence available to me. I was agnostic, and awaited the numbers
The first promising data from SA didn’t persuade me. Quite. SA is too different. But the last few days we have the same cheering data from NYC and now London. Omicron really is milder. Shorter stays in hospital. Vaccines still work. Hospitals are NOT overwhelmed and believe they can cope - their words
Now I am persuaded. As things stand lockdown is not justified.
Isn't it amazing that our doctors are reporting the same symptoms as the SA doctors. It's almost like we are all humans
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
"We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions".
This is the end of SAGE isn't it?
They are done with this admittance.
What's wrong with that? It's not in itself an unreasonable statement, or is there some context I am missing? Modelling, for instance, a scenario of 100% 90 year olds living each on their own without seeing anyone else would be a perfectly logical possibility, but it would be of no practical use and therefore not worth the time (except as a teaching example as part of a step in developing understanding of modelling).
As I understand what the Spectator seem to have unearthed is they only use inputs to models that lead to scary scenarios because, they seem to think, it is only those models that produce outputs which show a decision needs to be made.
It is fecking Alice in Wonderland frankly.
But that doesn't make sense. They wouldn't know what the output was till they did the input. The Speccy seems to be accusing them of picking between results.
Of course you know what the output will be by the inputs, at least for the people who write the model, you know the weightings of the inputs.
Doesn't work that way - the maths can be incredibly sensitive to input changes. (So I recall from my younger days studying, inter aliis, population dynamics and population genetics, and doing a course project on the latter, ironically on host-parasite genetics).
I don't know what any of that means - goodness me there are some smart people on this website
Just that MaxPB was claiming the scientists could tell what the results would be before they put the data in. Which doesn't feel right to me at all.
Also - some PBers have been complaining that the scientists were producing models with huge error ranges. Well, that in itself strongly suggests that the scientists aren't picking the results. If they wanted lockdown, they'd ...
(It's a different matter to recommend action based on those results - but on the precautionary principle, given the time delays involved, it makes sense to assume things will be at the shittier end of the spectrum till more data come in that can be used to refine the models.)
So you think the scientist would have no idea what would happen to the output of the model if they used a higher rate of transmissibility, or lower vaccine effectiveness?
Oh, those things aren't linear at all. Exponential behaviour for a start, which amplifies the errors in the data one usese for input. One has to use a range of data especially in early days like these, so one would end up with an even greater (proportionately) range of result.
And that is excluding the really bizarre results of higher values under which one could (and I did, in my student research study) crank up the parameter of infection level and end up with cyclical or chaotic behaviour, for instance.
But the output has a strong correlation with the input. If you wanted your model to produce a more pessimistic outlook, wouldn't you use a lower estimate for vaccine efficacy, or a higher transmissibility? The idea that the behaviour of the output cannot be predicted based on changes to those types of input is absurd.
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
But, and don't take this the wrong way, but when I was on her 48 hours or so ago weren't you the one who was most concerned, and encouraging a lockdown?
Maybe I have miss-remembered? or has the weight of evidence that Omicron is very milled changed your mind?
You’ve misremembered. In my hyperbolic-drunken way I identified Omicron early on as a big threat, and I predicted governments would react allergically to it, up to and including lockdown
I also predicted lockdown for the UK. I have never, however, advocated a new lockdown. There was not enough evidence available to me. I was agnostic, and awaited the numbers
The first promising data from SA didn’t persuade me. Quite. SA is too different. But the last few days we have the same cheering data from NYC and now London. Omicron really is milder. Shorter stays in hospital. Vaccines still work. Hospitals are NOT overwhelmed and believe they can cope - their words
Now I am persuaded. As things stand lockdown is not justified.
You agree with the current measures though?
Plan B? No
I believe I did say this on PB: plan B was an error as it was the thin end of the wedge towards wider restrictions. Also it will and has crucified hospitality and big cities with no hard evidence to justify it
However it’s all otiose anyway. Once Whitty made those remarks about ‘not going to parties’ that was it.
I do not revere this guy Whitty like others on here. I’m sure he’s intelligent, worthy and means well. But he’s just another science geek who can get things badly wrong. They all got masks wrong, a fact which they want us to quietly forget
Cabinet Office Minister Steve Barclay will chair a meeting between the government's emergency committee, Cobra, and the leaders of the devolved nations at 17:00 GMT.
"We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions".
This is the end of SAGE isn't it?
They are done with this admittance.
What's wrong with that? It's not in itself an unreasonable statement, or is there some context I am missing? Modelling, for instance, a scenario of 100% 90 year olds living each on their own without seeing anyone else would be a perfectly logical possibility, but it would be of no practical use and therefore not worth the time (except as a teaching example as part of a step in developing understanding of modelling).
As I understand what the Spectator seem to have unearthed is they only use inputs to models that lead to scary scenarios because, they seem to think, it is only those models that produce outputs which show a decision needs to be made.
It is fecking Alice in Wonderland frankly.
But that doesn't make sense. They wouldn't know what the output was till they did the input. The Speccy seems to be accusing them of picking between results.
Of course you know what the output will be by the inputs, at least for the people who write the model, you know the weightings of the inputs.
Doesn't work that way - the maths can be incredibly sensitive to input changes. (So I recall from my younger days studying, inter aliis, population dynamics and population genetics, and doing a course project on the latter, ironically on host-parasite genetics).
I don't know what any of that means - goodness me there are some smart people on this website
Just that MaxPB was claiming the scientists could tell what the results would be before they put the data in. Which doesn't feel right to me at all.
Also - some PBers have been complaining that the scientists were producing models with huge error ranges. Well, that in itself strongly suggests that the scientists aren't picking the results. If they wanted lockdown, they'd ...
(It's a different matter to recommend action based on those results - but on the precautionary principle, given the time delays involved, it makes sense to assume things will be at the shittier end of the spectrum till more data come in that can be used to refine the models.)
It’s very easy to iterate a model to fit the answers. Just tweak and run again. It’s not like they are doing a 12 hour calculation. I suspect the models being used are pretty simple. The scandal, as @MaxPB says, is not using real world data when it is available. This has been a problem before, too, and led to some stupid modelling as shown by the spectator on links posted on pb yesterday.
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
Suppose we get one. How do folk "sternly and firmly" resist?
I predict a riot
Nah people will follow the rules in public and break them in private. C’est la vie
And therein lies the problem. From Professor Pantsdown to Dom's Barnard Castle excursion to "definitely not a party" at number 10, the people responsible for making the laws have been shown to repeatedly break them.
I see very little evidence that the split on this site has really changed, the same people are pro lockdown as a year ago.
I'm not I'm afraid. There really was no alternative last year. It was the right, indeed the only option. Now. Not sure of that at all. Can a lockdown restrict Omicron given its transmissibility? Not convinced. Will a lockdown be followed by enough folk to be effective even if it is containable? Not convinced. Will there be so many hospitalised that the NHS is overwhelmed? Not convinced.
On all these points I am convincable. I have no ideological axe to grind here. But I don't think the case has been made as of yet.
The NHS has been on the brink of falling over every winter for at least a decade. It is not at all surprising to me that the prospect of an outbreak leading to tens of thousands of extra hospital visits is causing policy-makers to err on the side of caution when deciding what to do.
@kyf_100 ’s very powerful testimony shows how much damage on mental health is being inflicted. For all the talk about mental health being a priority, it’s clear it is low down on the list of priorities.
Also, I’m sick of middle class public sector professionals with a guaranteed wage and guaranteed pension telling everyone else that they have to sacrifice. Maybe they can show the courage of their convictions by offering to voluntarily give up a percentage of their very generous pension donations with the cash being used to support those suffering disproportionately from the crisis.
Heh, thanks. I'm much better now, thanks to good friends and several months of near-normality, though the thought we are heading into yet another two or three months minimum of the same bleakness fills me with utter terror. I don't want to slide back down into that dark, dark place again. Because next time I'm not sure I'll get out again.
We were told if we got the jabs, it would end. Then we were told if we got the booster, it would end. Now... when does it end?
Great question. When does it end. As asked by Beth Rigby at that first BoJo news conference.
And of course I wish you all the very best.
I have been vocally anti lockdown since almost the beginning (not as much as @contrarian ) not because of the medical outcome it achieves. No shit you make it illegal to meet people and the number of infectious diseases plummets.
But because of the precedent. Cock up or conspiracy we are now in a place where lockdowns are a common tool of government.
All those "I was then I'm not now" PBers should hang their heads in shame because this was the obvious end point.
But this is plainly ridiculous. By your logic no one should ever support any lockdowns because they might become more acceptable and frequent
That’s like saying you should never go to hospital otherwise it will become a habit
Bizarre
I'm not 100% sure anyone should ever support any lockdown.
What possible reason could there be to have a legal mandate about who you are allowed to have in your home.
You and The Francester are frankly doing more damage to yourselves than you realise with all your constant crappy posts.
Of course when faced with it, as many have, you lash out. And that's fine. But for you two, PB is a super unhealthy place but of course caveat emptor go for your lives. And let's have a funny charge that I am terrified and projecting and blah blah blah.
But you know it's true.
You’re projecting again
LOL touché.
But seriously. I know that you need a febrile atmosphere to produce your best-knapped flints but not everyone is as robust as you are, as many on PB have told us. Be careful how you wield your undoubted gifts on here.
I think you are unfair to the “not now, but then” group.
Lockdowns had a role. To buy time until vaccines. Which they did. They made it possible to have a normal life with an endemic disease.
So I am proud to be in the “lockdown then but not now” camp
As I said of course they were effective. But as a policy tool they were and are beyond the pale.
Cabinet Office Minister Steve Barclay will chair a meeting between the government's emergency committee, Cobra, and the leaders of the devolved nations at 17:00 GMT.
Where is PM Peppa Pig?
Is that a calculated insult or does it show that they don't expect anything useful to come of the meeting?
CHB - how are you? You posted quite alarmingly some weeks ago. Clearly most of us know little of you directly but many of us value your thoughts and comradeship (in a strictly non-Labour sense).
You're back, and that's great. You've clearly set yourself a few rules though. (I did that many years ago too - just decided it was easier to be nice to people rather than nasty).
Anyway, given you shared a very low moment I'd not be too shy about the better moments. I think you have more friends than you imagine.
Cabinet Office Minister Steve Barclay will chair a meeting between the government's emergency committee, Cobra, and the leaders of the devolved nations at 17:00 GMT.
Where is PM Peppa Pig?
Is that a calculated insult or does it show that they don't expect anything useful to come of the meeting?
I guess Boris is having a day off with the baby and the government position at the moment is wait and see, so there won't be anything to tell the devolved administrations beyond its spreading widely etc.
"We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions".
This is the end of SAGE isn't it?
They are done with this admittance.
What's wrong with that? It's not in itself an unreasonable statement, or is there some context I am missing? Modelling, for instance, a scenario of 100% 90 year olds living each on their own without seeing anyone else would be a perfectly logical possibility, but it would be of no practical use and therefore not worth the time (except as a teaching example as part of a step in developing understanding of modelling).
As I understand what the Spectator seem to have unearthed is they only use inputs to models that lead to scary scenarios because, they seem to think, it is only those models that produce outputs which show a decision needs to be made.
It is fecking Alice in Wonderland frankly.
But that doesn't make sense. They wouldn't know what the output was till they did the input. The Speccy seems to be accusing them of picking between results.
Of course you know what the output will be by the inputs, at least for the people who write the model, you know the weightings of the inputs.
Doesn't work that way - the maths can be incredibly sensitive to input changes. (So I recall from my younger days studying, inter aliis, population dynamics and population genetics, and doing a course project on the latter, ironically on host-parasite genetics).
I don't know what any of that means - goodness me there are some smart people on this website
Just that MaxPB was claiming the scientists could tell what the results would be before they put the data in. Which doesn't feel right to me at all.
Also - some PBers have been complaining that the scientists were producing models with huge error ranges. Well, that in itself strongly suggests that the scientists aren't picking the results. If they wanted lockdown, they'd ...
(It's a different matter to recommend action based on those results - but on the precautionary principle, given the time delays involved, it makes sense to assume things will be at the shittier end of the spectrum till more data come in that can be used to refine the models.)
So you think the scientist would have no idea what would happen to the output of the model if they used a higher rate of transmissibility, or lower vaccine effectiveness?
Oh, those things aren't linear at all. Exponential behaviour for a start, which amplifies the errors in the data one usese for input. One has to use a range of data especially in early days like these, so one would end up with an even greater (proportionately) range of result.
And that is excluding the really bizarre results of higher values under which one could (and I did, in my student research study) crank up the parameter of infection level and end up with cyclical or chaotic behaviour, for instance.
But the output has a strong correlation with the input. If you wanted your model to produce a more pessimistic outlook, wouldn't you use a lower estimate for vaccine efficacy, or a higher transmissibility? The idea that the behaviour of the output cannot be predicted based on changes to those types of input is absurd.
You're thinking in terms of simple models without error ranges. Error ranges in the data multiply to give wider error ranges in the results. Can't talk about 'strong correlations' overall.
904,598 booster vaccinations in 🇬🇧 exc Wales yesterday (530,086 the previous Saturday)
🏴 830,403 🏴 64,081 NI 10,114
When Welsh data is added in (tomorrow) it's almost certain yesterday will turn out to be the first day that more than a million vaccines were given out - figure excluding Wales is c. 987k I think.
Think we'll hit the million mark this week and then it will be after new year's day before we get back to that level.
It does seem unlikely that combination of capacity and demand that will be able to get much past 1 million a day. And as a result won't hit their aspiration.
I am sure the government will get grief for this "failure". Perhaps they should have just set the target as capacity of over million jabs a day.
I for one won't give them any grief for this. Would sooner and faster than this have been better? For sure, but the government, councils, NHS, GPs, pharmacists, and army of volunteers have done a great job of speeding up the boosters. Three cheers for them all, Boris included.
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
But, and don't take this the wrong way, but when I was on her 48 hours or so ago weren't you the one who was most concerned, and encouraging a lockdown?
Maybe I have miss-remembered? or has the weight of evidence that Omicron is very milled changed your mind?
You’ve misremembered. In my hyperbolic-drunken way I identified Omicron early on as a big threat, and I predicted governments would react allergically to it, up to and including lockdown
I also predicted lockdown for the UK. I have never, however, advocated a new lockdown. There was not enough evidence available to me. I was agnostic, and awaited the numbers
The first promising data from SA didn’t persuade me. Quite. SA is too different. But the last few days we have the same cheering data from NYC and now London. Omicron really is milder. Shorter stays in hospital. Vaccines still work. Hospitals are NOT overwhelmed and believe they can cope - their words
Now I am persuaded. As things stand lockdown is not justified.
You agree with the current measures though?
Plan B? No
I believe I did say this on PB: plan B was an error as it was the thin end of the wedge towards wider restrictions. Also it will and has crucified hospitality and big cities with no hard evidence to justify it
However it’s all otiose anyway. Once Whitty made those remarks about ‘not going to parties’ that was it.
I do not revere this guy Whitty like others on here. I’m sure he’s intelligent, worthy and means well. But he’s just another science geek who can get things badly wrong. They all got masks wrong, a fact which they want us to quietly forget
I quite like the lockdown model though of presenting the best science and just letting the public decide what works.
I took my first journey on one of the deep tube lines yesterday. I confess I wanted to murder the non mask wearers. I'm sure all of them would have had a good excuse... and yet all were young and attempting-but-failing to be trendy. If you can spend all the time to ridiculosy stick beads in your hair then you really could find a decent pair of jeans.
"We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions".
This is the end of SAGE isn't it?
They are done with this admittance.
What's wrong with that? It's not in itself an unreasonable statement, or is there some context I am missing? Modelling, for instance, a scenario of 100% 90 year olds living each on their own without seeing anyone else would be a perfectly logical possibility, but it would be of no practical use and therefore not worth the time (except as a teaching example as part of a step in developing understanding of modelling).
As I understand what the Spectator seem to have unearthed is they only use inputs to models that lead to scary scenarios because, they seem to think, it is only those models that produce outputs which show a decision needs to be made.
It is fecking Alice in Wonderland frankly.
But that doesn't make sense. They wouldn't know what the output was till they did the input. The Speccy seems to be accusing them of picking between results.
Of course you know what the output will be by the inputs, at least for the people who write the model, you know the weightings of the inputs.
Doesn't work that way - the maths can be incredibly sensitive to input changes. (So I recall from my younger days studying, inter aliis, population dynamics and population genetics, and doing a course project on the latter, ironically on host-parasite genetics).
I don't know what any of that means - goodness me there are some smart people on this website
Just that MaxPB was claiming the scientists could tell what the results would be before they put the data in. Which doesn't feel right to me at all.
Also - some PBers have been complaining that the scientists were producing models with huge error ranges. Well, that in itself strongly suggests that the scientists aren't picking the results. If they wanted lockdown, they'd ...
(It's a different matter to recommend action based on those results - but on the precautionary principle, given the time delays involved, it makes sense to assume things will be at the shittier end of the spectrum till more data come in that can be used to refine the models.)
It’s very easy to iterate a model to fit the answers. Just tweak and run again. It’s not like they are doing a 12 hour calculation. I suspect the models being used are pretty simple. The scandal, as @MaxPB says, is not using real world data when it is available. This has been a problem before, too, and led to some stupid modelling as shown by the spectator on links posted on pb yesterday.
+1 on using wrong data as inputs. Literally, using data that has proven to be wrong in the real world.
Also, when you model predicts an effect of between 5-100 (say), then it isn't a useful model. That is a guesstimate.
Cabinet Office Minister Steve Barclay will chair a meeting between the government's emergency committee, Cobra, and the leaders of the devolved nations at 17:00 GMT.
Where is PM Peppa Pig?
Is that a calculated insult or does it show that they don't expect anything useful to come of the meeting?
Hm, Mr B has a Treasury background. So all the less likely to agree to support for hospitality etc.?
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
But, and don't take this the wrong way, but when I was on her 48 hours or so ago weren't you the one who was most concerned, and encouraging a lockdown?
Maybe I have miss-remembered? or has the weight of evidence that Omicron is very milled changed your mind?
You’ve misremembered. In my hyperbolic-drunken way I identified Omicron early on as a big threat, and I predicted governments would react allergically to it, up to and including lockdown
I also predicted lockdown for the UK. I have never, however, advocated a new lockdown. There was not enough evidence available to me. I was agnostic, and awaited the numbers
The first promising data from SA didn’t persuade me. Quite. SA is too different. But the last few days we have the same cheering data from NYC and now London. Omicron really is milder. Shorter stays in hospital. Vaccines still work. Hospitals are NOT overwhelmed and believe they can cope - their words
Now I am persuaded. As things stand lockdown is not justified.
Isn't it amazing that our doctors are reporting the same symptoms as the SA doctors. It's almost like we are all humans
When you come across a point so thumpingly obvious that you actually understand it you are not shy, are you, about hammering it home?
We are all humans, well spotted. That said, we differ enough genetically to affect our relative susceptibility to some diseases (sickle cell anemia) and we have different median age, living conditions, HIV status, covid vacc status, covid prior infection status, climate and season. Don't worry if you don't see why any of that might in theory matter.
"We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions".
This is the end of SAGE isn't it?
They are done with this admittance.
What's wrong with that? It's not in itself an unreasonable statement, or is there some context I am missing? Modelling, for instance, a scenario of 100% 90 year olds living each on their own without seeing anyone else would be a perfectly logical possibility, but it would be of no practical use and therefore not worth the time (except as a teaching example as part of a step in developing understanding of modelling).
As I understand what the Spectator seem to have unearthed is they only use inputs to models that lead to scary scenarios because, they seem to think, it is only those models that produce outputs which show a decision needs to be made.
It is fecking Alice in Wonderland frankly.
But that doesn't make sense. They wouldn't know what the output was till they did the input. The Speccy seems to be accusing them of picking between results.
Of course you know what the output will be by the inputs, at least for the people who write the model, you know the weightings of the inputs.
Doesn't work that way - the maths can be incredibly sensitive to input changes. (So I recall from my younger days studying, inter aliis, population dynamics and population genetics, and doing a course project on the latter, ironically on host-parasite genetics).
I don't know what any of that means - goodness me there are some smart people on this website
Just that MaxPB was claiming the scientists could tell what the results would be before they put the data in. Which doesn't feel right to me at all.
Also - some PBers have been complaining that the scientists were producing models with huge error ranges. Well, that in itself strongly suggests that the scientists aren't picking the results. If they wanted lockdown, they'd ...
(It's a different matter to recommend action based on those results - but on the precautionary principle, given the time delays involved, it makes sense to assume things will be at the shittier end of the spectrum till more data come in that can be used to refine the models.)
So you think the scientist would have no idea what would happen to the output of the model if they used a higher rate of transmissibility, or lower vaccine effectiveness?
Oh, those things aren't linear at all. Exponential behaviour for a start, which amplifies the errors in the data one usese for input. One has to use a range of data especially in early days like these, so one would end up with an even greater (proportionately) range of result.
And that is excluding the really bizarre results of higher values under which one could (and I did, in my student research study) crank up the parameter of infection level and end up with cyclical or chaotic behaviour, for instance.
But the output has a strong correlation with the input. If you wanted your model to produce a more pessimistic outlook, wouldn't you use a lower estimate for vaccine efficacy, or a higher transmissibility? The idea that the behaviour of the output cannot be predicted based on changes to those types of input is absurd.
You're thinking in terms of simple models without error ranges. Error ranges in the data multiply to give wider error ranges in the results. Can't talk about 'strong correlations' overall.
Yes you can. Decreasing vaccine efficacy would only do one thing to the model output, it would make it more pessimistic. We aren't talking about increasing the uncertainties on the input, we are talking about changing the input value itself.
Cabinet Office Minister Steve Barclay will chair a meeting between the government's emergency committee, Cobra, and the leaders of the devolved nations at 17:00 GMT.
Where is PM Peppa Pig?
Is that a calculated insult or does it show that they don't expect anything useful to come of the meeting?
I guess Boris is having a day off with the baby and the government position at the moment is wait and see, so there won't be anything to tell the devolved administrations beyond its spreading widely etc.
But glory be, couldn't they at least have found a proper minister rather than the Chancellor of the Duchy of Fecking Lancaster? You would have thought if only for form's sake that Raab should be chairing it if Johnson is unavailable.
Sturgeon is going to go mental. Or send the Minister for Arranging Chairs or something.
In particular the chart showing admissions in London so far tracking the summer 'wave' not last winter's one. The argument for lockdown appears to be the need to be ahead of the curve. Only trouble is we don't know what sort of curve it will be. So it really comes down to a safety first argument.
Which is why we're all entitled to be concerned about a permanent cycle of lockdowns, as follows:
1. Scary new variant 2. Models (which may or may not be any good) suggest scary new variant *might* destroy NHS 3. Panic panic panic panic panic, lockdown to be on the safe side
Then back to 1., and repeat until dead.
We're almost certainly going to end up suffering a whole raft of new restrictions, if not this week then immediately after Christmas, so all we can do is hope that Omicron turns out to be so transmissible that restrictions are revealed to be useless against it, and will therefore be dumped once and for all. This will go on forever otherwise.
The rationale for a lockdown is weaker for this wave than it was for previous ones. Omicron is already rife and it spreads so fast that to a large extent the script is written. It's going to be (one of a range of) bads and will be over quite quickly. Public support for a lockdown is far from solid, the politics is difficult too. So, putting this together, I conclude that you and the other posters of your mindset are worrying about the wrong thing. Either there won't be a lockdown or if there is it'll be a short one. The thing to worry about is the NHS. Will it manage to struggle through?
Well, of course, in truth we should be trying not to worry about either lockdowns or the NHS, because there's nothing we can do about either. But one of, if not the, hardest things about the pandemic is that it has thrown into sharp relief our own lack of agency. One can go and get one's vaccines as soon as possible and, especially before the vaccines, one could choose to take calculated risks to enable some kind of life outside of the home to carry on, whilst minimising the chance of ending up ill, but that's about it. Apart from that we've been constantly dicked about with for nearly two years, being permitted or prohibited from living our lives by ministerial diktat; there is precious little that we can do about any of it; and there's no sign of the drudgery coming to an end.
It's small wonder that the temptation to give in to catastrophism remains great - especially, to tackle one of your specific assertions, about the length of any possible New Year lockdown. We have been here with these lockdowns before: once they're applied then the Government is very fearful about letting them go. Last time we had one it started in early January, almost everything including the schools was closed for two months, and the creep out of the restrictions lasted all the way through to July. And yes, I know that this was all whilst the vaccination programme was new and it needed time to get through people, but OTOH the vaccination programme has now been through the bulk of the adult population twice and halfway through it for a third time, and yet despite all that we've already suffering renewed restrictions, and a whole lot more of the damned things are being called for. Again.
It's really no surprise that so many people think it will never end, is it?
"We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions".
This is the end of SAGE isn't it?
They are done with this admittance.
What's wrong with that? It's not in itself an unreasonable statement, or is there some context I am missing? Modelling, for instance, a scenario of 100% 90 year olds living each on their own without seeing anyone else would be a perfectly logical possibility, but it would be of no practical use and therefore not worth the time (except as a teaching example as part of a step in developing understanding of modelling).
As I understand what the Spectator seem to have unearthed is they only use inputs to models that lead to scary scenarios because, they seem to think, it is only those models that produce outputs which show a decision needs to be made.
It is fecking Alice in Wonderland frankly.
But that doesn't make sense. They wouldn't know what the output was till they did the input. The Speccy seems to be accusing them of picking between results.
Of course you know what the output will be by the inputs, at least for the people who write the model, you know the weightings of the inputs.
Doesn't work that way - the maths can be incredibly sensitive to input changes. (So I recall from my younger days studying, inter aliis, population dynamics and population genetics, and doing a course project on the latter, ironically on host-parasite genetics).
I don't know what any of that means - goodness me there are some smart people on this website
Just that MaxPB was claiming the scientists could tell what the results would be before they put the data in. Which doesn't feel right to me at all.
Also - some PBers have been complaining that the scientists were producing models with huge error ranges. Well, that in itself strongly suggests that the scientists aren't picking the results. If they wanted lockdown, they'd ...
(It's a different matter to recommend action based on those results - but on the precautionary principle, given the time delays involved, it makes sense to assume things will be at the shittier end of the spectrum till more data come in that can be used to refine the models.)
So you think the scientist would have no idea what would happen to the output of the model if they used a higher rate of transmissibility, or lower vaccine effectiveness?
Oh, those things aren't linear at all. Exponential behaviour for a start, which amplifies the errors in the data one usese for input. One has to use a range of data especially in early days like these, so one would end up with an even greater (proportionately) range of result.
And that is excluding the really bizarre results of higher values under which one could (and I did, in my student research study) crank up the parameter of infection level and end up with cyclical or chaotic behaviour, for instance.
Another issue is the very poor social structure modelling in many of these simulations.
People aren't a uniform, homogeneous mass. More, they tend to regularly congregate in a series of groups - families, work, sports clubs, drinking buddies etc. These overlap with other groups, but the result is not an even mass.
The reaction to the perception of risk in mixing is interesting - there is some evidence (mostly anecdotal) that the various groups start severing connections to other groups as a first reaction. Which then has a massive effect on disease spread.
@Dura_Ace do you know of any half decent electric bikes/brands with a low/no top tube?
Not really, I'm not into eebs. If You're getting one go for for a tier one OEM like Giant with a branded powetrain (Shimano, Bosch). Stay away from AliExpress Chinese shit.
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
So number of boosters has stalled in the 800,000s per day and actually fell today… does this reflect a capacity constraint or is demand beginning to fall back after the opening-up-to-all at the beginning of the week… what more can the Government do to scare encourage more to do the right thing…
or that Wales didn't announce their stats today? and that if you go to https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations and look at boosters data, you'll see that 10 of the 11 weeks show the same pattern.
and that pattern returns. SHOCKED.
Don't. Chase. Daily. Figures.
But that would mean that 97% of @Leon DrunkPostings would be....
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
But, and don't take this the wrong way, but when I was on her 48 hours or so ago weren't you the one who was most concerned, and encouraging a lockdown?
Maybe I have miss-remembered? or has the weight of evidence that Omicron is very milled changed your mind?
You’ve misremembered. In my hyperbolic-drunken way I identified Omicron early on as a big threat, and I predicted governments would react allergically to it, up to and including lockdown
I also predicted lockdown for the UK. I have never, however, advocated a new lockdown. There was not enough evidence available to me. I was agnostic, and awaited the numbers
The first promising data from SA didn’t persuade me. Quite. SA is too different. But the last few days we have the same cheering data from NYC and now London. Omicron really is milder. Shorter stays in hospital. Vaccines still work. Hospitals are NOT overwhelmed and believe they can cope - their words
Now I am persuaded. As things stand lockdown is not justified.
Isn't it amazing that our doctors are reporting the same symptoms as the SA doctors. It's almost like we are all humans
When you come across a point so thumpingly obvious that you actually understand it you are not shy, are you, about hammering it home?
We are all humans, well spotted. That said, we differ enough genetically to affect our relative susceptibility to some diseases (sickle cell anemia) and we have different median age, living conditions, HIV status, covid vacc status, covid prior infection status, climate and season. Don't worry if you don't see why any of that might in theory matter.
“The numbers verge on the incomprehensible. Since the pandemic began, central banks have injected $32tn in to markets around the world, equivalent to buying $800m of financial assets every hour of the past 20 months, according to Bank of America.”
Which is what @Alistair is tracking in the SA stats. It seems like Omicron presents less need got mechanical ventilation and need of the ICU. If our own research is finding the same then those forecasts of the NHS collapsing need to be significantly revised.
Which is consistent with omicron being an upper respiratory tract infection rather than lower respiratory tract - also supported by the shift in symptoms to include sneezing and scratchy throat
I see very little evidence that the split on this site has really changed, the same people are pro lockdown as a year ago.
The split may not have changed but I'd be surprised if all of us haven't been on a bit of a journey as to our views. Unless you're the Piers Corbyn, or Steve Baker edges of our society then I think that must be true.
I genuinely don't really know my own opinion now - there's not so much science emerging it seems. My hunch is that Javid is weak and wobbly (just because that's my judgement of him beforehand).
I hope you are well - and thank you for your previous kind suggestion of meeting me. I simply cannot ask you to buy me food or a drink but I appreciate the sentiment all the same.
I am anti-lockdown in the sense it is bad for my health and bad for businesses like @Cyclefree's daughter, for whom I have a lot of sympathy.
But I am instinctively pro protecting and saving lives, I think in many ways that informs my politics as one of compassion and love and that is the person I try to be. So that is how I see things.
I hope we do not need a lockdown - but I do think it is far too early to be saying everything is ok. Because we've been down this road before with Delta. And I remember having the same arguments with Phil and others this time last year.
Last year I was much more open to the idea of restrictions than I am now. I hated the idea of them, but we hadn't rolled vaccines out yet, so the idea of restrictions until we've vaccinated the vulnerable made some sense.
This is a completely different scenario now. We've not just triple vaccinated the vulnerable, we have vaccinated everyone who wants it.
Restrictions now aren't buying time for a vaccine rollout, they're just an act of denial shoving your head in the sand thinking the big bad virus will go away if only you wish very hard that it does.
Mail: Mutinous backbenchers have been retweeting messages suggesting that it might be 'too late' for the premier to save himself, after the massive mutiny over Plan B curbs last week and weeks of misery over sleaze allegations and the Downing Street 'Partygate' scandal. It could make it even harder for Mr Johnson to push through new restrictions to combat the surging Omicron variant, despite scientists warning mixing between households should be banned at Christmas.
Nikki da Costa, a former No10 aide and friend of Lord Frost, warned that the 'whole system' in No 10 'doesn't work'. Echoing the views of many MPs, she told the Sunday Telegraph that Dan Rosenfield, a former Treasury official who replaced Dominic Cummings in Downing Street in late 2020, was partly responsible because he lacked 'political sensibility'. 'He doesn't like challenge,' she said.
Lord Frost, who negotiated Britain's departure from the EU as Brexit Minister, is understood to have been persuaded to delay his resignation until January after giving notice to Mr Johnson a week ago. However, after the Mail on Sunday exclusively revealed he was departing, the peer brought forward his departure.
Conservative MPs are increasingly talking about a challenge to the Prime Minister's leadership within the next six months, with Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Foreign Secretary Liz Truss leading the field of contenders. Messages from a Whatsapp group of more than 100 Tory MPs titled 'Clean Global Brexit', showed Andrew Bridgen describing the move as a 'disaster' while Theresa Villiers calls it 'very worrying'.
"An important point. Chairman of Sage modellers presumes someone else in gvt is modelling the economic and social harm of a new lockdown. But no one is (and that’s not his fault).
"How can ministers decide how to “balance the harms” if they’re only given one side of the story?"
It's the same point I made last night. The government is like a big corporation wondering whether to launch a risky new product. They bring in their advisors, and all they ask the advisors is: what is the downside of launching this, how bad can it get?
They then get a series of forecasts ranging from "big loss" to "total bankruptcy"
They don't ever ask the other side of the question, what is the upside, how good can it be, which might get the answers "huge profit" to "global domination". They never hear the possible positives
So this corporation always errs on the side of caution, never innovates, and becomes Pan Am, Kodak or Nokia
Cabinet Office Minister Steve Barclay will chair a meeting between the government's emergency committee, Cobra, and the leaders of the devolved nations at 17:00 GMT.
So number of boosters has stalled in the 800,000s per day and actually fell today… does this reflect a capacity constraint or is demand beginning to fall back after the opening-up-to-all at the beginning of the week… what more can the Government do to scare encourage more to do the right thing…
or that Wales didn't announce their stats today? and that if you go to https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations and look at boosters data, you'll see that 10 of the 11 weeks show the same pattern.
and that pattern returns. SHOCKED.
Don't. Chase. Daily. Figures.
But that would mean that 97% of @Leon DrunkPostings would be....
McElvoy: A PM who has thrived on charisma has lost his lustre. It is not the usual Johnson-haters in or outside the party who sound like his nemeses but, most vocally, former allies and champions.
The toll of the pandemic and a slew of unforced errors have dented his greatest asset – the self-confidence and ability to sound conversational while honing a message that resonates with a range of voters. Ascribing a rout to too much focus on “politics and politicians” reminded me of Communist bosses in 1989 instructing furious citizens not to focus on their miseries and frustrations, but on the excellent grain harvest and factory outputs.
Brand Boris is being ground down by competing demands. Both sides (unhappily for him) unite in concern about incompetence, drift and high handedness with MPs. One usually loyal female minister confides that the revelations of revels inside No 10 and the leaked video of his press team’s levity about these “opened the floodgates of anger” to the extent that she felt sorry for her constituency staff having to read the insults.
For all the agitation over his many failings, the question many backbenchers will ask is what could a newcomer offer that would provide a clearer recipe for success. For all the fizzing around a possible challenge, Johnson’s most ambitious would-be successors are more about positioning than a power grab now. So Johnson probably has a short period of respite in which to refocus his premiership before the next wave of economic woes hits home and local elections in May offer the next punishing political health check.
McElvoy: A PM who has thrived on charisma has lost his lustre. It is not the usual Johnson-haters in or outside the party who sound like his nemeses but, most vocally, former allies and champions.
The toll of the pandemic and a slew of unforced errors have dented his greatest asset – the self-confidence and ability to sound conversational while honing a message that resonates with a range of voters. Ascribing a rout to too much focus on “politics and politicians” reminded me of Communist bosses in 1989 instructing furious citizens not to focus on their miseries and frustrations, but on the excellent grain harvest and factory outputs.
Brand Boris is being ground down by competing demands. Both sides (unhappily for him) unite in concern about incompetence, drift and high handedness with MPs. One usually loyal female minister confides that the revelations of revels inside No 10 and the leaked video of his press team’s levity about these “opened the floodgates of anger” to the extent that she felt sorry for her constituency staff having to read the insults.
For all the agitation over his many failings, the question many backbenchers will ask is what could a newcomer offer that would provide a clearer recipe for success. For all the fizzing around a possible challenge, Johnson’s most ambitious would-be successors are more about positioning than a power grab now. So Johnson probably has a short period of respite in which to refocus his premiership before the next wave of economic woes hits home and local elections in May offer the next punishing political health check.
904,598 booster vaccinations in 🇬🇧 exc Wales yesterday (530,086 the previous Saturday)
🏴 830,403 🏴 64,081 NI 10,114
When Welsh data is added in (tomorrow) it's almost certain yesterday will turn out to be the first day that more than a million vaccines were given out - figure excluding Wales is c. 987k I think.
Think we'll hit the million mark this week and then it will be after new year's day before we get back to that level.
Great prediction lol. Must have really been a challenge to make that extrapolation. Now now master modeller with all the really clever friends. Where are hospitalisations going to be this week and next?
904,598 booster vaccinations in 🇬🇧 exc Wales yesterday (530,086 the previous Saturday)
🏴 830,403 🏴 64,081 NI 10,114
When Welsh data is added in (tomorrow) it's almost certain yesterday will turn out to be the first day that more than a million vaccines were given out - figure excluding Wales is c. 987k I think.
Think we'll hit the million mark this week and then it will be after new year's day before we get back to that level.
It does seem unlikely that combination of capacity and demand that will be able to get much past 1 million a day. And as a result won't hit their aspiration.
I am sure the government will get grief for this "failure". Perhaps they should have just set the target as capacity of over million jabs a day.
I for one won't give them any grief for this. Would sooner and faster than this have been better? For sure, but the government, councils, NHS, GPs, pharmacists, and army of volunteers have done a great job of speeding up the boosters. Three cheers for them all, Boris included.
904,598 booster vaccinations in 🇬🇧 exc Wales yesterday (530,086 the previous Saturday)
🏴 830,403 🏴 64,081 NI 10,114
When Welsh data is added in (tomorrow) it's almost certain yesterday will turn out to be the first day that more than a million vaccines were given out - figure excluding Wales is c. 987k I think.
Think we'll hit the million mark this week and then it will be after new year's day before we get back to that level.
Great prediction lol. Must have really been a challenge to make that extrapolation. Now now master modeller with all the really clever friends. Where are hospitalisations going to be this week and next?
Nobody knows. Including the modellers working for the government. Their modelling every single time have however been out, often by huge margins. So nobody should be using it.
If of course you have clairvoyant powers and can deliver the information, perhaps you should be advising the government?
Mail: Mutinous backbenchers have been retweeting messages suggesting that it might be 'too late' for the premier to save himself, after the massive mutiny over Plan B curbs last week and weeks of misery over sleaze allegations and the Downing Street 'Partygate' scandal. It could make it even harder for Mr Johnson to push through new restrictions to combat the surging Omicron variant, despite scientists warning mixing between households should be banned at Christmas.
Nikki da Costa, a former No10 aide and friend of Lord Frost, warned that the 'whole system' in No 10 'doesn't work'. Echoing the views of many MPs, she told the Sunday Telegraph that Dan Rosenfield, a former Treasury official who replaced Dominic Cummings in Downing Street in late 2020, was partly responsible because he lacked 'political sensibility'. 'He doesn't like challenge,' she said.
Lord Frost, who negotiated Britain's departure from the EU as Brexit Minister, is understood to have been persuaded to delay his resignation until January after giving notice to Mr Johnson a week ago. However, after the Mail on Sunday exclusively revealed he was departing, the peer brought forward his departure.
Conservative MPs are increasingly talking about a challenge to the Prime Minister's leadership within the next six months, with Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Foreign Secretary Liz Truss leading the field of contenders. Messages from a Whatsapp group of more than 100 Tory MPs titled 'Clean Global Brexit', showed Andrew Bridgen describing the move as a 'disaster' while Theresa Villiers calls it 'very worrying'.
The developing scene includes these snapshots: UK as a whole is divided as much as ever about the merits of Brexit at all; the Tory party looks like shifting its split over EU v leave EU to one flavour of Brexit v another flavour of Brexit, but just as visceral.
904,598 booster vaccinations in 🇬🇧 exc Wales yesterday (530,086 the previous Saturday)
🏴 830,403 🏴 64,081 NI 10,114
When Welsh data is added in (tomorrow) it's almost certain yesterday will turn out to be the first day that more than a million vaccines were given out - figure excluding Wales is c. 987k I think.
Think we'll hit the million mark this week and then it will be after new year's day before we get back to that level.
Great prediction lol. Must have really been a challenge to make that extrapolation. Now now master modeller with all the really clever friends. Where are hospitalisations going to be this week and next?
Nobody knows. Including the modellers working for the government. Their modelling every single time have however been out, often by huge margins. So nobody should be using it.
If of course you have clairvoyant powers and can deliver the information, perhaps you should be advising the government?
McElvoy: A PM who has thrived on charisma has lost his lustre. It is not the usual Johnson-haters in or outside the party who sound like his nemeses but, most vocally, former allies and champions.
The toll of the pandemic and a slew of unforced errors have dented his greatest asset – the self-confidence and ability to sound conversational while honing a message that resonates with a range of voters. Ascribing a rout to too much focus on “politics and politicians” reminded me of Communist bosses in 1989 instructing furious citizens not to focus on their miseries and frustrations, but on the excellent grain harvest and factory outputs.
Brand Boris is being ground down by competing demands. Both sides (unhappily for him) unite in concern about incompetence, drift and high handedness with MPs. One usually loyal female minister confides that the revelations of revels inside No 10 and the leaked video of his press team’s levity about these “opened the floodgates of anger” to the extent that she felt sorry for her constituency staff having to read the insults.
For all the agitation over his many failings, the question many backbenchers will ask is what could a newcomer offer that would provide a clearer recipe for success. For all the fizzing around a possible challenge, Johnson’s most ambitious would-be successors are more about positioning than a power grab now. So Johnson probably has a short period of respite in which to refocus his premiership before the next wave of economic woes hits home and local elections in May offer the next punishing political health check.
904,598 booster vaccinations in 🇬🇧 exc Wales yesterday (530,086 the previous Saturday)
🏴 830,403 🏴 64,081 NI 10,114
When Welsh data is added in (tomorrow) it's almost certain yesterday will turn out to be the first day that more than a million vaccines were given out - figure excluding Wales is c. 987k I think.
Think we'll hit the million mark this week and then it will be after new year's day before we get back to that level.
Great prediction lol. Must have really been a challenge to make that extrapolation. Now now master modeller with all the really clever friends. Where are hospitalisations going to be this week and next?
Nobody knows. Including the modellers working for the government. Their modelling every single time have however been out, often by huge margins. So nobody should be using it.
If of course you have clairvoyant powers and can deliver the information, perhaps you should be advising the government?
I don't know myself but then I haven't posted thousands of posts pretending I do, always after the event of course. ;-)
I see very little evidence that the split on this site has really changed, the same people are pro lockdown as a year ago.
The split may not have changed but I'd be surprised if all of us haven't been on a bit of a journey as to our views. Unless you're the Piers Corbyn, or Steve Baker edges of our society then I think that must be true.
I genuinely don't really know my own opinion now - there's not so much science emerging it seems. My hunch is that Javid is weak and wobbly (just because that's my judgement of him beforehand).
I hope you are well - and thank you for your previous kind suggestion of meeting me. I simply cannot ask you to buy me food or a drink but I appreciate the sentiment all the same.
I am anti-lockdown in the sense it is bad for my health and bad for businesses like @Cyclefree's daughter, for whom I have a lot of sympathy.
But I am instinctively pro protecting and saving lives, I think in many ways that informs my politics as one of compassion and love and that is the person I try to be. So that is how I see things.
I hope we do not need a lockdown - but I do think it is far too early to be saying everything is ok. Because we've been down this road before with Delta. And I remember having the same arguments with Phil and others this time last year.
Last year I was much more open to the idea of restrictions than I am now. I hated the idea of them, but we hadn't rolled vaccines out yet, so the idea of restrictions until we've vaccinated the vulnerable made some sense.
This is a completely different scenario now. We've not just triple vaccinated the vulnerable, we have vaccinated everyone who wants it.
Restrictions now aren't buying time for a vaccine rollout, they're just an act of denial shoving your head in the sand thinking the big bad virus will go away if only you wish very hard that it does.
Utter rubbish.
I remember arguing with you at length about there being no need for a lockdown, how we'd already reached herd immunity.
904,598 booster vaccinations in 🇬🇧 exc Wales yesterday (530,086 the previous Saturday)
🏴 830,403 🏴 64,081 NI 10,114
When Welsh data is added in (tomorrow) it's almost certain yesterday will turn out to be the first day that more than a million vaccines were given out - figure excluding Wales is c. 987k I think.
Think we'll hit the million mark this week and then it will be after new year's day before we get back to that level.
Great prediction lol. Must have really been a challenge to make that extrapolation. Now now master modeller with all the really clever friends. Where are hospitalisations going to be this week and next?
Nobody knows. Including the modellers working for the government. Their modelling every single time have however been out, often by huge margins. So nobody should be using it.
If of course you have clairvoyant powers and can deliver the information, perhaps you should be advising the government?
If the models are so bad, what should we be using by the way? ;-)
I used to know Piers, vaguely, when he was a squatters' leader in Elgin Avenue back in the 70s. Anyone who can lead squatters deserves mention in the same hushed tones as Hannibal or Field Marshal Montgomery. In those days he was only slightly dotty, but it's been downhill all the way, unfortunately.
904,598 booster vaccinations in 🇬🇧 exc Wales yesterday (530,086 the previous Saturday)
🏴 830,403 🏴 64,081 NI 10,114
When Welsh data is added in (tomorrow) it's almost certain yesterday will turn out to be the first day that more than a million vaccines were given out - figure excluding Wales is c. 987k I think.
Think we'll hit the million mark this week and then it will be after new year's day before we get back to that level.
Great prediction lol. Must have really been a challenge to make that extrapolation. Now now master modeller with all the really clever friends. Where are hospitalisations going to be this week and next?
Nobody knows. Including the modellers working for the government. Their modelling every single time have however been out, often by huge margins. So nobody should be using it.
If of course you have clairvoyant powers and can deliver the information, perhaps you should be advising the government?
I don't know myself but then I haven't posted thousands of posts pretending I do, always after the event of course. ;-)
Max at least has been saying for months on end that this modelling doesn't make sense and the use of them is flawed.
Which is all anyone can do.
What is disturbing is the way they are, despite being patently flawed, they are being used to strongly push a policy agenda.
Which is what is the real issue at stake here. Not the models - they work as they are intended to - but how they are deployed and what they are used for.
I return to post something because it is really quite important. And cheering
“Lesley Powls, head of emergency planning and clinical site operations at King’s, compared the intense preparation to an “incredible moment of calm” before a tsunami.
“She said: “It’s my job to write the plans and put the plans in place. And there’s a point where you think: ‘OK – we’re ready.’” Powls said initial indications were that patients who were being admitted were not as sick as in previous waves.
“She said: “Last year, going into Christmas and New Year, we were seeing patients presenting at our emergency department who were so unwell they were going to critical care as the first place of admission.
““What we are seeing at the moment is patients who are going to general wards for maybe 24 to 48 hours and are then able to go home. We genotype all of our samples and we are certainly seeing some genotyping highly suggestive of Omicron.”
“Powls said the initial indications were that the trust would have the capacity to cope, and it wanted to ensure that other services were available for non-Covid patients. She said there was a concern services could be overwhelmed, but she did not consider it a significant risk based on the evidence she had seen to date.”
Do we really need any more evidence? South Africa is coping. New York is coping. And now, it seems, London is coping
The only possible justification for the hideous cruelty of lockdown is an overwhelmed health system. That simply isn’t happening. Lockdown must be firmly and sternly resisted
904,598 booster vaccinations in 🇬🇧 exc Wales yesterday (530,086 the previous Saturday)
🏴 830,403 🏴 64,081 NI 10,114
When Welsh data is added in (tomorrow) it's almost certain yesterday will turn out to be the first day that more than a million vaccines were given out - figure excluding Wales is c. 987k I think.
Think we'll hit the million mark this week and then it will be after new year's day before we get back to that level.
Great prediction lol. Must have really been a challenge to make that extrapolation. Now now master modeller with all the really clever friends. Where are hospitalisations going to be this week and next?
Nobody knows. Including the modellers working for the government. Their modelling every single time have however been out, often by huge margins. So nobody should be using it.
If of course you have clairvoyant powers and can deliver the information, perhaps you should be advising the government?
If the models are so bad, what should we be using by the way? ;-)
Why should we use something repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong and based on false premises?
'What we should use instead' is a completely irrelevant argument. Better nothing than totally misleading materials.
Comments
Part of my scepticism over the results being presented is that it is not particularly clear that the validation work needed to guide the above thinking has been done.
Edit: also, a big part of the validation process is sufficient sensitivity testing that you know exactly which inputs have what sensitivity, so that you can predict roughly what the model will do when they are changed. The sorts of non-linear models you list can make that process much harder, but there's no reason I can think of for the COVID models to have the sort of feedback loops which make that the case.
Hope your recovery is continuing smoothly.
But, and don't take this the wrong way, but when I was on her 48 hours or so ago weren't you the one who was most concerned, and encouraging a lockdown?
Maybe I have miss-remembered? or has the weight of evidence that Omicron is very milled changed your mind?
Although his scope seems more horror.
I am anti-lockdown in the sense it is bad for my health and bad for businesses like @Cyclefree's daughter, for whom I have a lot of sympathy.
But I am instinctively pro protecting and saving lives, I think in many ways that informs my politics as one of compassion and love and that is the person I try to be. So that is how I see things.
I hope we do not need a lockdown - but I do think it is far too early to be saying everything is ok. Because we've been down this road before with Delta. And I remember having the same arguments with Phil and others this time last year.
🏴 830,403
🏴 64,081
NI 10,114
When Welsh data is added in (tomorrow) it's almost certain yesterday will turn out to be the first day that more than a million vaccines were given out - figure excluding Wales is c. 987k I think.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1472568625680769024?s=20
This time last year, I was incredibly anxious as I was trying to convince my family not to all meet up for Christmas. I was having to explain to them that getting COVID at the same time as lots of other people was a bad idea and we just needed to get the parents jabbed.
This year we’re making up for last year, whatever the politicians say.
I am sure the government will get grief for this "failure". Perhaps they should have just set the target as capacity of over million jabs a day.
I also predicted lockdown for the UK. I have never, however, advocated a new lockdown. There was not enough evidence available to me. I was agnostic, and awaited the numbers
The first promising data from SA didn’t persuade me. Quite. SA is too different. But the last few days we have the same cheering data from NYC and now London. Omicron really is milder. Shorter stays in hospital. Vaccines still work. Hospitals are NOT overwhelmed and believe they can cope - their words
Now I am persuaded. As things stand lockdown is not justified.
So number of boosters has stalled in the 800,000s per day and actually fell today… does this reflect a capacity constraint or is demand beginning to fall back after the opening-up-to-all at the beginning of the week… what more can the Government do to scare encourage more to do the right thing…
or that Wales didn't announce their stats today? and that if you go to https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations and look at boosters data, you'll see that 10 of the 11 weeks show the same pattern.
and that pattern returns. SHOCKED.
Don't. Chase. Daily. Figures.
And that is excluding the really bizarre results of higher values under which one could (and I did, in my student research study) crank up the parameter of infection level and end up with cyclical or chaotic behaviour, for instance.
And go about your normal life even if you think you might be infected.
think this is the most recent summary: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1042221/20211218_OS_Daily-Omicron-Overview.pdf
and front page here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-omicron-daily-overview
There is probably somebody who has put this into a more accessible format.
I believe I did say this on PB: plan B was an error as it was the thin end of the wedge towards wider restrictions. Also it will and has crucified hospitality and big cities with no hard evidence to justify it
However it’s all otiose anyway. Once Whitty made those remarks about ‘not going to parties’ that was it.
I do not revere this guy Whitty like others on here. I’m sure he’s intelligent, worthy and means well. But he’s just another science geek who can get things badly wrong. They all got masks wrong, a fact which they want us to quietly forget
Where is PM Peppa Pig?
The scandal, as @MaxPB says, is not using real world data when it is available. This has been a problem before, too, and led to some stupid modelling as shown by the spectator on links posted on pb yesterday.
You're back, and that's great. You've clearly set yourself a few rules though. (I did that many years ago too - just decided it was easier to be nice to people rather than nasty).
Anyway, given you shared a very low moment I'd not be too shy about the better moments. I think you have more friends than you imagine.
I took my first journey on one of the deep tube lines yesterday. I confess I wanted to murder the non mask wearers. I'm sure all of them would have had a good excuse... and yet all were young and attempting-but-failing to be trendy. If you can spend all the time to ridiculosy stick beads in your hair then you really could find a decent pair of jeans.
Also, when you model predicts an effect of between 5-100 (say), then it isn't a useful model. That is a guesstimate.
We are all humans, well spotted. That said, we differ enough genetically to affect our relative susceptibility to some diseases (sickle cell anemia) and we have different median age, living conditions, HIV status, covid vacc status, covid prior infection status, climate and season. Don't worry if you don't see why any of that might in theory matter.
Sturgeon is going to go mental. Or send the Minister for Arranging Chairs or something.
It's small wonder that the temptation to give in to catastrophism remains great - especially, to tackle one of your specific assertions, about the length of any possible New Year lockdown. We have been here with these lockdowns before: once they're applied then the Government is very fearful about letting them go. Last time we had one it started in early January, almost everything including the schools was closed for two months, and the creep out of the restrictions lasted all the way through to July. And yes, I know that this was all whilst the vaccination programme was new and it needed time to get through people, but OTOH the vaccination programme has now been through the bulk of the adult population twice and halfway through it for a third time, and yet despite all that we've already suffering renewed restrictions, and a whole lot more of the damned things are being called for. Again.
It's really no surprise that so many people think it will never end, is it?
People aren't a uniform, homogeneous mass. More, they tend to regularly congregate in a series of groups - families, work, sports clubs, drinking buddies etc. These overlap with other groups, but the result is not an even mass.
The reaction to the perception of risk in mixing is interesting - there is some evidence (mostly anecdotal) that the various groups start severing connections to other groups as a first reaction. Which then has a massive effect on disease spread.
https://amp.ft.com/content/58a0dbf0-aaf3-4ec0-8e56-5d47f9a1b42b
Yet.
This is a completely different scenario now. We've not just triple vaccinated the vulnerable, we have vaccinated everyone who wants it.
Restrictions now aren't buying time for a vaccine rollout, they're just an act of denial shoving your head in the sand thinking the big bad virus will go away if only you wish very hard that it does.
Nikki da Costa, a former No10 aide and friend of Lord Frost, warned that the 'whole system' in No 10 'doesn't work'. Echoing the views of many MPs, she told the Sunday Telegraph that Dan Rosenfield, a former Treasury official who replaced Dominic Cummings in Downing Street in late 2020, was partly responsible because he lacked 'political sensibility'. 'He doesn't like challenge,' she said.
Lord Frost, who negotiated Britain's departure from the EU as Brexit Minister, is understood to have been persuaded to delay his resignation until January after giving notice to Mr Johnson a week ago. However, after the Mail on Sunday exclusively revealed he was departing, the peer brought forward his departure.
Conservative MPs are increasingly talking about a challenge to the Prime Minister's leadership within the next six months, with Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Foreign Secretary Liz Truss leading the field of contenders. Messages from a Whatsapp group of more than 100 Tory MPs titled 'Clean Global Brexit', showed Andrew Bridgen describing the move as a 'disaster' while Theresa Villiers calls it 'very worrying'.
"An important point. Chairman of Sage modellers presumes someone else in gvt is modelling the economic and social harm of a new lockdown. But no one is (and that’s not his fault).
"How can ministers decide how to “balance the harms” if they’re only given one side of the story?"
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1472565502451007492?s=20
It's the same point I made last night. The government is like a big corporation wondering whether to launch a risky new product. They bring in their advisors, and all they ask the advisors is: what is the downside of launching this, how bad can it get?
They then get a series of forecasts ranging from "big loss" to "total bankruptcy"
They don't ever ask the other side of the question, what is the upside, how good can it be, which might get the answers "huge profit" to "global domination". They never hear the possible positives
So this corporation always errs on the side of caution, never innovates, and becomes Pan Am, Kodak or Nokia
https://www.wired.com/1999/02/weather-2/
The toll of the pandemic and a slew of unforced errors have dented his greatest asset – the self-confidence and ability to sound conversational while honing a message that resonates with a range of voters. Ascribing a rout to too much focus on “politics and politicians” reminded me of Communist bosses in 1989 instructing furious citizens not to focus on their miseries and frustrations, but on the excellent grain harvest and factory outputs.
Brand Boris is being ground down by competing demands. Both sides (unhappily for him) unite in concern about incompetence, drift and high handedness with MPs. One usually loyal female minister confides that the revelations of revels inside No 10 and the leaked video of his press team’s levity about these “opened the floodgates of anger” to the extent that she felt sorry for her constituency staff having to read the insults.
For all the agitation over his many failings, the question many backbenchers will ask is what could a newcomer offer that would provide a clearer recipe for success. For all the fizzing around a possible challenge, Johnson’s most ambitious would-be successors are more about positioning than a power grab now. So Johnson probably has a short period of respite in which to refocus his premiership before the next wave of economic woes hits home and local elections in May offer the next punishing political health check.
If of course you have clairvoyant powers and can deliver the information, perhaps you should be advising the government?
I remember arguing with you at length about there being no need for a lockdown, how we'd already reached herd immunity.
"NO XMAS CHEER Sage doom mongers want a MONTH-long circuit breaker lockdown banning household mixing over Christmas"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/health/17086101/doom-monger-scientists-month-lockdown-christmas/
Which is all anyone can do.
What is disturbing is the way they are, despite being patently flawed, they are being used to strongly push a policy agenda.
Which is what is the real issue at stake here. Not the models - they work as they are intended to - but how they are deployed and what they are used for.
Tactical voting or otherwise
'What we should use instead' is a completely irrelevant argument. Better nothing than totally misleading materials.