John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 2m If there were a Tory leadership election now, who would run? Sunak, Truss, Mordaunt, Hunt, Javid, Raab, Gove, Zahawi...?
On the difficulty of deciding on a lockdown given currently available information
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp Using deaths or hopsitalisations (which are very lagged indicators) as a marker of Omicron wave's potential severity when cases have risen so rapidly and only reached high levels in the last week is pure abuse of statistics from Heneghan.
Simply put the publicly available data isn't good enough to make any decision regardless of people's viewpoints.
She doesn't understand irony, does she?
As to why dead and hospitalisation haven't taken off (yet)
Fortunately there are no days coming up where different family generations meet up.
I think Stuart’s right. In 10 years time nobody will remember having voted for it. Not even Charles.
Boris is a corpse, too. He’ll be lucky to last into Spring.
What a frabjous day, though it’s a bit chilly here in Portugal after several days of balmy, t-shirt weather.
I don't see how brexit is dead. Its over. We are out. To make brexit dead surely implies rejoin?
Indeed we will be dealing with it forever. Brexit might one day be over as a state of mind, but the fact of it remains.
I'm not convinced a Tory coup where anti lockdown Truss or Sunak gets chosen in the midst of a pandemic meltdown is optimal timing.
The quicker Johnson is gone, the better. Even Rishi and Truss are improvements.
Neither will restore Tory fortunes; but that’s a different matter.
I suspect his mps want him to continue for a while to absorb the flak and I would expect post the May locals they will act
I agree with you. Also best for Truss, as the NI changes will have kicked in.
I prefer Rishi but that choice is upto his mps and then the members which this time I will not be one
Rishi represents the polish and connections that money can buy. If you like that and think that's helpful in solving the nation's problems then go for it. I think that there others that might be a little more connected.
It would also suggest he knows how to deal with finance unlike labour whose only answer to any question is spend billions and billions with no care as to how it is paid for
You might like to look up the CV of Rachel Reeves.
I like Rachel but not labour's throw billions at each and every problem
£37 billion thrown at Test and Trace. Described as an "eye watering waste of money" which failed to achieve its objective.
But at least the money was spent with the "right sort of people"
The issue with trying to use test and trace has been an issue all along - asymptomatic and pre-symtpomatic transmission. Once you have that in mix I'd argue its almost impossible to shut down transmission chains with the interconnected lives we lead. Even with the original strain, even with the first lockdown, we didn't reach zero covid, even in Scotland. However, it is possible to see an effect. In the SW, the scandal of the testing failures at Immensa genuinly did seem to lead to an increase in cases as false negatives went about their business and spread the disease. I was wrong on the surge that followed - I initially thought it was just catch up testing, but the scale suggests it wasn't.
We are not at the point where the question needs to be - what do we gain by testing 1.6M a day? Transmission of omicron is so potent, and the original issues remain and asympto and pre-symptomatic spread. I'd argue now we should focus on testing in secondary care at point of admission, and use the money saved to improve ventilationg and air filtration in places where it might do some good - care homes, hospitals and schools.
It would have been more effective to hand out LFTs to every household. People do seem to use them and would tell their friends and family. Even the 20 year olds I know do it because they worry about parents and grandparents.
There is a LFT "census" idea being floated in Scotland. Everyone does one on the same day.
I really like the idea from an analytical perspective, but it does feel a bit Big Brother.
How is this different from the population monitoring already being done?
I was wondering that too, but if everyone knew their current infection state you might slow the rate of transmission a bit.
On the difficulty of deciding on a lockdown given currently available information
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp Using deaths or hopsitalisations (which are very lagged indicators) as a marker of Omicron wave's potential severity when cases have risen so rapidly and only reached high levels in the last week is pure abuse of statistics from Heneghan.
Simply put the publicly available data isn't good enough to make any decision regardless of people's viewpoints.
So Pagel accepts there's no available evidence for her bias to action? It's a start I suppose.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 2m If there were a Tory leadership election now, who would run? Sunak, Truss, Mordaunt, Hunt, Javid, Raab, Gove, Zahawi...?
Although one can never tell who will be ok until they actually do the job, the ones that come over as ok for me are:
Sunak, Hunt, Javid, Zahawi
Those who are a no-no are:
Raab, Gove
As for the other two I have mixed feelings about Truss and I don't know enough about Mordaunt, but generally feel positive.
Javid, has, for me, blotted his copybook this last few weeks. I thought he was one of the brighter ones. He started out by actually challenging the detail of the modelling he was given. But he now seems surprised by the assumptions being made in sage's doomsday models. Not him, any more, for me.
The more time goes on, the more I favour Sunak. If Zahawi is a serious contender, him next. Then who? I really don't know. Truss, I suppose - not wildly excited about her abilities but I'd place her on my side of the lockdown argument.
On the difficulty of deciding on a lockdown given currently available information
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp Using deaths or hopsitalisations (which are very lagged indicators) as a marker of Omicron wave's potential severity when cases have risen so rapidly and only reached high levels in the last week is pure abuse of statistics from Heneghan.
Simply put the publicly available data isn't good enough to make any decision regardless of people's viewpoints.
So Pagel accepts there's no available evidence for her bias to action? It's a start I suppose.
I am extrapolating from the statistics
He is abusing the statistics.
Another irregular verb? I extrapolate, she abuses, he makes shit up?
Rishi is a very strong communicator. But he is an Ayn Rand ultra, and supported Brexit from the start. He therefore clearly has a screw loose somewhere.
I don’t want a plutocrat as PM, I think on balance I’d prefer Truss even though she is actually ghastly.
If he is an Ayn Rand ultra how come he has spent far more than George Osborne or Philip Hammond did as Chancellor or indeed more than Gordon Brown did in New Labour's first term? He has also raised corporation tax and NI
Some confusion, I think: Javid is the Ayn Rand ultra; I'm not aware that Sunak is.
Though in the Cabinet Javid seems most keen on new state imposed Covid restrictions along with Gove, which is hardly Ayn Rand.
The closest Tory leadership contender to Rand ideology is actually probably Steve Baker
That a lunatic like Rand even features on the reading lists of potential leadership contenders shows how far the Tories have drifted from the mainstream.
Rand is one of the greatest authors of the 20th century. 👍
No wonder leftwing loonies despise her. They'd rather be reading Marx.
It’s not really possible to have a rounded knowledge of economics, politics or history without some familiarity with Marx.
Only because it's instructive to understand why he was so incredibly wrong.
On the difficulty of deciding on a lockdown given currently available information
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp Using deaths or hopsitalisations (which are very lagged indicators) as a marker of Omicron wave's potential severity when cases have risen so rapidly and only reached high levels in the last week is pure abuse of statistics from Heneghan.
Simply put the publicly available data isn't good enough to make any decision regardless of people's viewpoints.
So Pagel accepts there's no available evidence for her bias to action? It's a start I suppose.
I am extrapolating from the statistics
He is abusing the statistics.
Another irregular verb? I extrapolate, she abuses, he makes shit up?
On the difficulty of deciding on a lockdown given currently available information
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp Using deaths or hopsitalisations (which are very lagged indicators) as a marker of Omicron wave's potential severity when cases have risen so rapidly and only reached high levels in the last week is pure abuse of statistics from Heneghan.
Simply put the publicly available data isn't good enough to make any decision regardless of people's viewpoints.
She doesn't understand irony, does she?
As to why dead and hospitalisation haven't taken off (yet)
Fortunately there are no days coming up where different family generations meet up.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 2m If there were a Tory leadership election now, who would run? Sunak, Truss, Mordaunt, Hunt, Javid, Raab, Gove, Zahawi...?
Although one can never tell who will be ok until they actually do the job, the ones that come over as ok for me are:
Sunak, Hunt, Javid, Zahawi
Those who are a no-no are:
Raab, Gove
As for the other two I have mixed feelings about Truss and I don't know enough about Mordaunt, but generally feel positive.
Javid, has, for me, blotted his copybook this last few weeks. I thought he was one of the brighter ones. He started out by actually challenging the detail of the modelling he was given. But he now seems surprised by the assumptions being made in sage's doomsday models. Not him, any more, for me.
The more time goes on, the more I favour Sunak. If Zahawi is a serious contender, him next. Then who? I really don't know. Truss, I suppose - not wildly excited about her abilities but I'd place her on my side of the lockdown argument.
Not my choice, of course.
Zahawi is the same as Javid, just less prominent.
Started out as minister for vaccine credit taking saying all the right things, as time has gone on become clear he'll say whatever he's asked to say, which is probably why he was given such a cushy job.
Deepti Gurdasani @dgurdasani1 · 2h they modelled all scenarios, and their best case scenario was 2000-3000 admissions/day which is double to triple the levels now. Worst case scenarios were much much worse.
===
Fraser Nelson says they didn't based on his chat with Medley.
Rishi is a very strong communicator. But he is an Ayn Rand ultra, and supported Brexit from the start. He therefore clearly has a screw loose somewhere.
I don’t want a plutocrat as PM, I think on balance I’d prefer Truss even though she is actually ghastly.
If he is an Ayn Rand ultra how come he has spent far more than George Osborne or Philip Hammond did as Chancellor or indeed more than Gordon Brown did in New Labour's first term? He has also raised corporation tax and NI
Some confusion, I think: Javid is the Ayn Rand ultra; I'm not aware that Sunak is.
Though in the Cabinet Javid seems most keen on new state imposed Covid restrictions along with Gove, which is hardly Ayn Rand.
The closest Tory leadership contender to Rand ideology is actually probably Steve Baker
That a lunatic like Rand even features on the reading lists of potential leadership contenders shows how far the Tories have drifted from the mainstream.
Rand is one of the greatest authors of the 20th century. 👍
No wonder leftwing loonies despise her. They'd rather be reading Marx.
It’s not really possible to have a rounded knowledge of economics, politics or history without some familiarity with Marx.
Only because it's instructive to understand why he was so incredibly wrong.
One of the reasons why I enjoyed the 13e Brumaire de Louis Napoleon is that while writing it he had to come to the same understanding himself.
On topic there is little practical benefit to putting in restrictions for Christmas at this stage. Plans have been made. People are travelling as we speak. Food has been bought.
The chances of getting the population to comply this year are nigh on impossible, given how late it is in the day and all the news stories that are coming out about last year (“it was OK for you guys then,” etc…)
I suspect we’ll get advisory warnings not to mix more than 2 households or whatever which will be promptly ignored by all and sundry.
I’m not even sure restrictions after Christmas are going to be particularly closely followed. The festive season isn’t just Christmas Day: it’s often a chain of events leading up to and including New Year’s Day.
The first day where meaningful restrictions can probably be introduced is from 2 January - the miserable weeks where nothing much happens anyway.
Does Daughter - and all those in her position - order in food and drinks and risk finding herself with unsold stock because at the last minute a curfew is imposed or venues are told to close like last year?
Or does she simply keep the place closed to minimise losses? It's not as if there are only 5 working days before 4 days of holidays and plans to be made and deadlines to be met. I mean, all the time in the world for governments to faff around like clueless idiots.
And it's not as if she needs to order food for the 27th / 28th now because suppliers won't be open on then.
It's a tough decision with zero right answers - personally I would probably be skipping the food and doing drinks (but I know that's not where the profit is).
Closure looks the most likely. What on earth is the point of carrying on? She may as well have some rest at home. She certainly deserves it.
Empty the fridges, sell the remains of the kegs and lock up. Sadly it seems like the best plan.
I half expect our local to announce they are open for drinks today and tomorrow for similar reasons come 3pm or the press conference later on.
I think Stuart’s right. In 10 years time nobody will remember having voted for it. Not even Charles.
Boris is a corpse, too. He’ll be lucky to last into Spring.
What a frabjous day, though it’s a bit chilly here in Portugal after several days of balmy, t-shirt weather.
I don't see how brexit is dead. Its over. We are out. To make brexit dead surely implies rejoin?
Indeed we will be dealing with it forever. Brexit might one day be over as a state of mind, but the fact of it remains.
I'm not convinced a Tory coup where anti lockdown Truss or Sunak gets chosen in the midst of a pandemic meltdown is optimal timing.
The quicker Johnson is gone, the better. Even Rishi and Truss are improvements.
Neither will restore Tory fortunes; but that’s a different matter.
I suspect his mps want him to continue for a while to absorb the flak and I would expect post the May locals they will act
I agree with you. Also best for Truss, as the NI changes will have kicked in.
I prefer Rishi but that choice is upto his mps and then the members which this time I will not be one
Rishi represents the polish and connections that money can buy. If you like that and think that's helpful in solving the nation's problems then go for it. I think that there others that might be a little more connected.
It would also suggest he knows how to deal with finance unlike labour whose only answer to any question is spend billions and billions with no care as to how it is paid for
You might like to look up the CV of Rachel Reeves.
I like Rachel but not labour's throw billions at each and every problem
£37 billion thrown at Test and Trace. Described as an "eye watering waste of money" which failed to achieve its objective.
But at least the money was spent with the "right sort of people"
The issue with trying to use test and trace has been an issue all along - asymptomatic and pre-symtpomatic transmission. Once you have that in mix I'd argue its almost impossible to shut down transmission chains with the interconnected lives we lead. Even with the original strain, even with the first lockdown, we didn't reach zero covid, even in Scotland. However, it is possible to see an effect. In the SW, the scandal of the testing failures at Immensa genuinly did seem to lead to an increase in cases as false negatives went about their business and spread the disease. I was wrong on the surge that followed - I initially thought it was just catch up testing, but the scale suggests it wasn't.
We are not at the point where the question needs to be - what do we gain by testing 1.6M a day? Transmission of omicron is so potent, and the original issues remain and asympto and pre-symptomatic spread. I'd argue now we should focus on testing in secondary care at point of admission, and use the money saved to improve ventilationg and air filtration in places where it might do some good - care homes, hospitals and schools.
It would have been more effective to hand out LFTs to every household. People do seem to use them and would tell their friends and family. Even the 20 year olds I know do it because they worry about parents and grandparents.
There is a LFT "census" idea being floated in Scotland. Everyone does one on the same day.
I really like the idea from an analytical perspective, but it does feel a bit Big Brother.
How is this different from the population monitoring already being done?
If everyone tests on the same day with LFTs, they get instant results, and there is a chance of breaking chains of transmission. Might have worked in 2020/2021 - but with the highly infectious variants, you'd need 100% compliance, which is obviously impossible.
On the difficulty of deciding on a lockdown given currently available information
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp Using deaths or hopsitalisations (which are very lagged indicators) as a marker of Omicron wave's potential severity when cases have risen so rapidly and only reached high levels in the last week is pure abuse of statistics from Heneghan.
Simply put the publicly available data isn't good enough to make any decision regardless of people's viewpoints.
So Pagel accepts there's no available evidence for her bias to action? It's a start I suppose.
I am extrapolating from the statistics
He is abusing the statistics.
Another irregular verb? I extrapolate, she abuses, he makes shit up?
Deepti Gurdasani @dgurdasani1 · 2h they modelled all scenarios, and their best case scenario was 2000-3000 admissions/day which is double to triple the levels now. Worst case scenarios were much much worse.
===
Fraser Nelson says they didn't based on his chat with Medley.
The real joke is they specifically said they only model scenarios which require action.
2-3k hospitalisations per day peak is not close to requiring action. Bias illustrated on 2 counts.
A considerably larger spread on Truss than Sunak, which suggests that most of the new money is backing (rather than laying) her. Sunak has money going on both sides.
It's quite funny how desperate the doom mongers scientists are getting now. Ministers seem to have finally woken up to the fact that models aren't real data. Their predictions of catastrophe were wrong in July when the government chose to ignore predictions of 7k per day hospitalised and that's going to really hurt them this time around.
Worse then is that we knew what Delta was likely to do having seen other countries open up and they still got it hopelessly wrong. If they can't get their predictions right with Delta then what are the chances they are even in the right ballpark with Omicron?
I've heard that the Spectator and Telegraph pieces by Fraser Nelson on how the government modellers operate has been getting a lot of airtime today with reactions predictably unimpressed.
If we don't go into lockdown it will be because the modellers decided to start colouring outside the lines and got caught in the act.
I think Stuart’s right. In 10 years time nobody will remember having voted for it. Not even Charles.
Boris is a corpse, too. He’ll be lucky to last into Spring.
What a frabjous day, though it’s a bit chilly here in Portugal after several days of balmy, t-shirt weather.
I don't see how brexit is dead. Its over. We are out. To make brexit dead surely implies rejoin?
Indeed we will be dealing with it forever. Brexit might one day be over as a state of mind, but the fact of it remains.
I'm not convinced a Tory coup where anti lockdown Truss or Sunak gets chosen in the midst of a pandemic meltdown is optimal timing.
The quicker Johnson is gone, the better. Even Rishi and Truss are improvements.
Neither will restore Tory fortunes; but that’s a different matter.
I suspect his mps want him to continue for a while to absorb the flak and I would expect post the May locals they will act
I agree with you. Also best for Truss, as the NI changes will have kicked in.
I prefer Rishi but that choice is upto his mps and then the members which this time I will not be one
Rishi represents the polish and connections that money can buy. If you like that and think that's helpful in solving the nation's problems then go for it. I think that there others that might be a little more connected.
It would also suggest he knows how to deal with finance unlike labour whose only answer to any question is spend billions and billions with no care as to how it is paid for
You might like to look up the CV of Rachel Reeves.
I like Rachel but not labour's throw billions at each and every problem
She was very unspecific on R4 this morning: "What would Labour do?" "What ever it takes to protect the NHS" "Specifically, what? Waffle, waffle, waffle.
She said communicate now and clearly what is required to protect the family Christmas and then a plan for after that which ensures the NHS doesn't collapse. She also stressed sick pay as a priority if we need people to self-isolate. It was not a waffly performance. Indeed I think with this new team Starmer is starting to build up a mood of not just "Oh god enough of this shower" but also "Labour would be better." I have Lab majority laid for chunky money @ 6 and I am, for the first time, just beginning to doubt the wisdom of that.
That said, the government is in a difficult position on this even without the noise from the batshit crazy likes of Dezzy Swayne. With Covid it's better to act early, the history of the pandemic shows us this, but Omicron spreads so fast that acting early - ie now at the latest - means acting when it's still uncertain what and when the peak of cases will otherwise be and how those cases will translate to demands on hospitals. A risk, therefore, of imposing unnecessary measures.
But if they instead hold off until the projections are firmed up, that's a risk too. If they turn out to be at the milder end on numbers and/or severity, great, the decision to delay was a great one. We've been saved a needless lockdown or near lockdown. OTOH if the firmed up projections say Omicron is set to overwhelm the NHS, now the delay looks like a dereliction of duty, because the measures now need to be more severe, and maybe last longer, and perhaps it's too late anyway and a large number of people die as a direct consequence.
It's very tricky, the more so because this sort of calculus can't easily be presented to the public. You've got stats, models, confidence levels, probabilities, cost v benefit, upside v downside risk analysis, the whole thing is just very very tricky even ignoring the politics. And with so much riding on it. I just hope Johnson can focus on the matter properly, putting all the other shit to one side, or if he can't that he lets somebody more switched on and competent make the decisions.
He has a new born. So his brain will be even more scrabbled than usual. Not good timing.
I think the new born might make a better call on omicron tbh.
I think Stuart’s right. In 10 years time nobody will remember having voted for it. Not even Charles.
Boris is a corpse, too. He’ll be lucky to last into Spring.
What a frabjous day, though it’s a bit chilly here in Portugal after several days of balmy, t-shirt weather.
I don't see how brexit is dead. Its over. We are out. To make brexit dead surely implies rejoin?
Indeed we will be dealing with it forever. Brexit might one day be over as a state of mind, but the fact of it remains.
I'm not convinced a Tory coup where anti lockdown Truss or Sunak gets chosen in the midst of a pandemic meltdown is optimal timing.
The quicker Johnson is gone, the better. Even Rishi and Truss are improvements.
Neither will restore Tory fortunes; but that’s a different matter.
I suspect his mps want him to continue for a while to absorb the flak and I would expect post the May locals they will act
I agree with you. Also best for Truss, as the NI changes will have kicked in.
I prefer Rishi but that choice is upto his mps and then the members which this time I will not be one
Rishi represents the polish and connections that money can buy. If you like that and think that's helpful in solving the nation's problems then go for it. I think that there others that might be a little more connected.
It would also suggest he knows how to deal with finance unlike labour whose only answer to any question is spend billions and billions with no care as to how it is paid for
You might like to look up the CV of Rachel Reeves.
I like Rachel but not labour's throw billions at each and every problem
£37 billion thrown at Test and Trace. Described as an "eye watering waste of money" which failed to achieve its objective.
But at least the money was spent with the "right sort of people"
The issue with trying to use test and trace has been an issue all along - asymptomatic and pre-symtpomatic transmission. Once you have that in mix I'd argue its almost impossible to shut down transmission chains with the interconnected lives we lead. Even with the original strain, even with the first lockdown, we didn't reach zero covid, even in Scotland. However, it is possible to see an effect. In the SW, the scandal of the testing failures at Immensa genuinly did seem to lead to an increase in cases as false negatives went about their business and spread the disease. I was wrong on the surge that followed - I initially thought it was just catch up testing, but the scale suggests it wasn't.
We are not at the point where the question needs to be - what do we gain by testing 1.6M a day? Transmission of omicron is so potent, and the original issues remain and asympto and pre-symptomatic spread. I'd argue now we should focus on testing in secondary care at point of admission, and use the money saved to improve ventilationg and air filtration in places where it might do some good - care homes, hospitals and schools.
It would have been more effective to hand out LFTs to every household. People do seem to use them and would tell their friends and family. Even the 20 year olds I know do it because they worry about parents and grandparents.
There is a LFT "census" idea being floated in Scotland. Everyone does one on the same day.
I really like the idea from an analytical perspective, but it does feel a bit Big Brother.
How is this different from the population monitoring already being done?
If everyone tests on the same day with LFTs, they get instant results, and there is a chance of breaking chains of transmission. Might have worked in 2020/2021 - but with the highly infectious variants, you'd need 100% compliance, which is obviously impossible.
Surely there will be a large number of pre-symptomatic and pre-LFT positive people?
These will be the people spreading it, and you won't catch them.
It's quite funny how desperate the doom mongers scientists are getting now. Ministers seem to have finally woken up to the fact that models aren't real data. Their predictions of catastrophe were wrong in July when the government chose to ignore predictions of 7k per day hospitalised and that's going to really hurt them this time around.
Worse then is that we knew what Delta was likely to do having seen other countries open up and they still got it hopelessly wrong. If they can't get their predictions right with Delta then what are the chances they are even in the right ballpark with Omicron?
I've heard that the Spectator and Telegraph pieces by Fraser Nelson on how the government modellers operate has been getting a lot of airtime today with reactions predictably unimpressed.
If we don't go into lockdown it will be because the modellers decided to start colouring outside the lines and got caught in the act.
I'm interested to know why the doom mongers decided to behave like this in the first place. There must be a reason.
Spurs kicked out of Europe. Pretty strict. But it would have helped with Vax rates if the FA had been so firm. Would have helped EFC too.
EPL should have followed US sports approach. Basically not vaxxed you can't practice / travel./ attend meetings withour a whole load of hassle and if your team has an outbreak and you aren't vaxxed, the unvaxxed get the blame. So it quickly terms into a collective thing, you either get on board for the good of the whole team or you are risking the whole team.
A huge number of Americans think that more people die in plane crashes than in car crashes,
That really surprises me, air travel has long been pitched as "the safest form of transport", and car crashes are common enough that most people probably see one or the results of one every few months or so.
Indeed so. But if you add up deaths in plane crashes and deaths in car crashes, purely from watching the national evening news, the reported plane crash deaths are a much higher number.
It’s totally irrational, but the reality is that 30,000 people die on US roads each year, two orders of magnitude more than die on commercial aircraft. Even including private planes and sporting aviation, the number of aircraft deaths is still usually only three figures.
What about if expressed as deaths per hour of travel time though? Are planes still miles safer than cars if you do that?
It's quite funny how desperate the doom mongers scientists are getting now. Ministers seem to have finally woken up to the fact that models aren't real data. Their predictions of catastrophe were wrong in July when the government chose to ignore predictions of 7k per day hospitalised and that's going to really hurt them this time around.
Worse then is that we knew what Delta was likely to do having seen other countries open up and they still got it hopelessly wrong. If they can't get their predictions right with Delta then what are the chances they are even in the right ballpark with Omicron?
I've heard that the Spectator and Telegraph pieces by Fraser Nelson on how the government modellers operate has been getting a lot of airtime today with reactions predictably unimpressed.
If we don't go into lockdown it will be because the modellers decided to start colouring outside the lines and got caught in the act.
I'm interested to know why the doom mongers decided to behave like this in the first place. There must be a reason.
They get paid for sitting at home, in a nice, warm, comfortable room, talking about themselves in lockdown.
Deepti Gurdasani @dgurdasani1 · 2h they modelled all scenarios, and their best case scenario was 2000-3000 admissions/day which is double to triple the levels now. Worst case scenarios were much much worse.
===
Fraser Nelson says they didn't based on his chat with Medley.
They absolutely did not model ALL scenarios, including ones influenced by REAL WORLD DATA (SA, plus actual data on how the vaccines and boosters are holding up). They were asked to give scary stories and have done so.
Spurs kicked out of Europe. Pretty strict. But it would have helped with Vax rates if the FA had been so firm. Would have helped EFC too.
EPL should have followed US sports approach. Basically not vaxxed you can't practice / travel./ attend meetings withour a whole load of hassle and if your team has an outbreak and you aren't vaxxed, the unvaxxed get the blame. So it quickly terms into a collective thing, you either get on board for the good of the whole team or you are risking the whole team.
Spurs kicked out of Europe. Pretty strict. But it would have helped with Vax rates if the FA had been so firm. Would have helped EFC too.
EPL should have followed US sports approach. Basically not vaxxed you can't practice / travel./ attend meetings withour a whole load of hassle and if your team has an outbreak and you aren't vaxxed, the unvaxxed get the blame. So it quickly terms into a collective thing, you either get on board for the good of the whole team or you are risking the whole team.
US sports are now 90+ % vaxxed.
The UK is 90+% vaxxed without any such measures.
Why aren't athletes?
WhatsApp conspiracy nonsense.
Why are athletes more vulnerable to such conspiracy nonsense than the general population?
I think Stuart’s right. In 10 years time nobody will remember having voted for it. Not even Charles.
Boris is a corpse, too. He’ll be lucky to last into Spring.
What a frabjous day, though it’s a bit chilly here in Portugal after several days of balmy, t-shirt weather.
I don't see how brexit is dead. Its over. We are out. To make brexit dead surely implies rejoin?
Indeed we will be dealing with it forever. Brexit might one day be over as a state of mind, but the fact of it remains.
I'm not convinced a Tory coup where anti lockdown Truss or Sunak gets chosen in the midst of a pandemic meltdown is optimal timing.
The quicker Johnson is gone, the better. Even Rishi and Truss are improvements.
Neither will restore Tory fortunes; but that’s a different matter.
I suspect his mps want him to continue for a while to absorb the flak and I would expect post the May locals they will act
I agree with you. Also best for Truss, as the NI changes will have kicked in.
I prefer Rishi but that choice is upto his mps and then the members which this time I will not be one
Rishi represents the polish and connections that money can buy. If you like that and think that's helpful in solving the nation's problems then go for it. I think that there others that might be a little more connected.
It would also suggest he knows how to deal with finance unlike labour whose only answer to any question is spend billions and billions with no care as to how it is paid for
You might like to look up the CV of Rachel Reeves.
I like Rachel but not labour's throw billions at each and every problem
£37 billion thrown at Test and Trace. Described as an "eye watering waste of money" which failed to achieve its objective.
But at least the money was spent with the "right sort of people"
The issue with trying to use test and trace has been an issue all along - asymptomatic and pre-symtpomatic transmission. Once you have that in mix I'd argue its almost impossible to shut down transmission chains with the interconnected lives we lead. Even with the original strain, even with the first lockdown, we didn't reach zero covid, even in Scotland. However, it is possible to see an effect. In the SW, the scandal of the testing failures at Immensa genuinly did seem to lead to an increase in cases as false negatives went about their business and spread the disease. I was wrong on the surge that followed - I initially thought it was just catch up testing, but the scale suggests it wasn't.
We are not at the point where the question needs to be - what do we gain by testing 1.6M a day? Transmission of omicron is so potent, and the original issues remain and asympto and pre-symptomatic spread. I'd argue now we should focus on testing in secondary care at point of admission, and use the money saved to improve ventilationg and air filtration in places where it might do some good - care homes, hospitals and schools.
It would have been more effective to hand out LFTs to every household. People do seem to use them and would tell their friends and family. Even the 20 year olds I know do it because they worry about parents and grandparents.
There is a LFT "census" idea being floated in Scotland. Everyone does one on the same day.
I really like the idea from an analytical perspective, but it does feel a bit Big Brother.
How is this different from the population monitoring already being done?
If everyone tests on the same day with LFTs, they get instant results, and there is a chance of breaking chains of transmission. Might have worked in 2020/2021 - but with the highly infectious variants, you'd need 100% compliance, which is obviously impossible.
Plus no false negatives and no-one who is just pre-symptomatic enough etc etc
It's quite funny how desperate the doom mongers scientists are getting now. Ministers seem to have finally woken up to the fact that models aren't real data. Their predictions of catastrophe were wrong in July when the government chose to ignore predictions of 7k per day hospitalised and that's going to really hurt them this time around.
Worse then is that we knew what Delta was likely to do having seen other countries open up and they still got it hopelessly wrong. If they can't get their predictions right with Delta then what are the chances they are even in the right ballpark with Omicron?
I've heard that the Spectator and Telegraph pieces by Fraser Nelson on how the government modellers operate has been getting a lot of airtime today with reactions predictably unimpressed.
If we don't go into lockdown it will be because the modellers decided to start colouring outside the lines and got caught in the act.
Given how wide their error bars how would we even know where the lines are to colour outside :-)
Deepti Gurdasani @dgurdasani1 · 2h they modelled all scenarios, and their best case scenario was 2000-3000 admissions/day which is double to triple the levels now. Worst case scenarios were much much worse.
===
Fraser Nelson says they didn't based on his chat with Medley.
They absolutely did not model ALL scenarios, including ones influenced by REAL WORLD DATA (SA, plus actual data on how the vaccines and boosters are holding up). They were asked to give scary stories and have done so.
Getting a bit sick of 'blame the politicians, not the modellers' line as well. Every modeller in every field reports in to someone else who sets the remit. But every modeller worth their salt raises issues, creates their own scenarios when needed and points out what their tune caller is missing. If you just do what you're asked uncritically, you are crap at your job.
Deepti Gurdasani @dgurdasani1 · 2h they modelled all scenarios, and their best case scenario was 2000-3000 admissions/day which is double to triple the levels now. Worst case scenarios were much much worse.
===
Fraser Nelson says they didn't based on his chat with Medley.
They absolutely did not model ALL scenarios, including ones influenced by REAL WORLD DATA (SA, plus actual data on how the vaccines and boosters are holding up). They were asked to give scary stories and have done so.
I think this is likely to come back and bite them in the arse though, The Times saying lots of ministers not on board with lockdown based on data models that have never had good real world validation. Rishi leading the charge apparently and refusing to agree a lockdown without real world data showing increased primary COVID hospitalisations and deaths (not incidental). He's also unsackable, if the PM moves against Rishi then he won't survive even a few days.
On topic there is little practical benefit to putting in restrictions for Christmas at this stage. Plans have been made. People are travelling as we speak. Food has been bought.
The chances of getting the population to comply this year are nigh on impossible, given how late it is in the day and all the news stories that are coming out about last year (“it was OK for you guys then,” etc…)
I suspect we’ll get advisory warnings not to mix more than 2 households or whatever which will be promptly ignored by all and sundry.
I’m not even sure restrictions after Christmas are going to be particularly closely followed. The festive season isn’t just Christmas Day: it’s often a chain of events leading up to and including New Year’s Day.
The first day where meaningful restrictions can probably be introduced is from 2 January - the miserable weeks where nothing much happens anyway.
Does Daughter - and all those in her position - order in food and drinks and risk finding herself with unsold stock because at the last minute a curfew is imposed or venues are told to close like last year?
Or does she simply keep the place closed to minimise losses? It's not as if there are only 5 working days before 4 days of holidays and plans to be made and deadlines to be met. I mean, all the time in the world for governments to faff around like clueless idiots.
And it's not as if she needs to order food for the 27th / 28th now because suppliers won't be open on then.
It's a tough decision with zero right answers - personally I would probably be skipping the food and doing drinks (but I know that's not where the profit is).
Closure looks the most likely. What on earth is the point of carrying on? She may as well have some rest at home. She certainly deserves it.
That does sound perhaps the way to go.
Just a question from somebody who knows not much about the catering trade -
Would an option be to just shut down, lie low or do something else for a while, then when Covid looks reliably over, and if the desire and ambition remains, fire up again using the contacts and expertise amassed?
It's quite funny how desperate the doom mongers scientists are getting now. Ministers seem to have finally woken up to the fact that models aren't real data. Their predictions of catastrophe were wrong in July when the government chose to ignore predictions of 7k per day hospitalised and that's going to really hurt them this time around.
Worse then is that we knew what Delta was likely to do having seen other countries open up and they still got it hopelessly wrong. If they can't get their predictions right with Delta then what are the chances they are even in the right ballpark with Omicron?
I've heard that the Spectator and Telegraph pieces by Fraser Nelson on how the government modellers operate has been getting a lot of airtime today with reactions predictably unimpressed.
If we don't go into lockdown it will be because the modellers decided to start colouring outside the lines and got caught in the act.
I'm interested to know why the doom mongers decided to behave like this in the first place. There must be a reason.
They only ask what the Gov't asks them to model I expect. And there's not enough scientists in Gov't to realise what they've actually asked of the modellers. Also a massive bias toward extreme destruction of the hospitality trade caution on all sides.
A huge number of Americans think that more people die in plane crashes than in car crashes,
That really surprises me, air travel has long been pitched as "the safest form of transport", and car crashes are common enough that most people probably see one or the results of one every few months or so.
Indeed so. But if you add up deaths in plane crashes and deaths in car crashes, purely from watching the national evening news, the reported plane crash deaths are a much higher number.
It’s totally irrational, but the reality is that 30,000 people die on US roads each year, two orders of magnitude more than die on commercial aircraft. Even including private planes and sporting aviation, the number of aircraft deaths is still usually only three figures.
What about if expressed as deaths per hour of travel time though? Are planes still miles safer than cars if you do that?
Still miles safer for the vast majority of people. Now Americans spend an awful long time commuting by car, but even one hour a day each way is only 500 hours a year.
When there’s not a pandemic on, I probably spend a few hundred hours in the car, and a few dozen hours on planes each year, which makes the car an order of magnitude more dangerous per hour than the plane.
Given how little the likes of Pagel are off the media, i wonder how much of their own research / day job they have actually got done the past 2 years.
The next RAE or whatever it is called these days should be interesting for some of these peeps.
REF is based on 7 years work - they will also be publishing lots of their work in the field about Covid, and it will attract a lot of attention because the topic. They'll be fine. The ones who have had lab time restricted because of covid-safe rules etc will be more impacted. We shut down lab work for three months, and then have had part time working in places to minimise contact, often in some of the best ventilated spaces you will find (e.g. my chemistry lab is say 10m x 6m with 10 fume hoods that constantly extract the air). We are still made to wear masks in it...
Deepti Gurdasani @dgurdasani1 · 2h they modelled all scenarios, and their best case scenario was 2000-3000 admissions/day which is double to triple the levels now. Worst case scenarios were much much worse.
===
Fraser Nelson says they didn't based on his chat with Medley.
They absolutely did not model ALL scenarios, including ones influenced by REAL WORLD DATA (SA, plus actual data on how the vaccines and boosters are holding up). They were asked to give scary stories and have done so.
I think you are giving too much influence on a set of data (SA) that for a lot of reasons many people are ignoring.
My issue is that we are doing stuff based on the old infection / R0 rates of the original Covid and Delta. With Omicron, there is zero point locking things down now - it's just too late to make anything beyond a token effort and I really do suspect that even a full lockdown won't make any real world difference to hospital figures.
Deepti Gurdasani @dgurdasani1 · 2h they modelled all scenarios, and their best case scenario was 2000-3000 admissions/day which is double to triple the levels now. Worst case scenarios were much much worse.
===
Fraser Nelson says they didn't based on his chat with Medley.
They absolutely did not model ALL scenarios, including ones influenced by REAL WORLD DATA (SA, plus actual data on how the vaccines and boosters are holding up). They were asked to give scary stories and have done so.
Getting a bit sick of 'blame the politicians, not the modellers' line as well. Every modeller in every field reports in to someone else who sets the remit. But every modeller worth their salt raises issues, creates their own scenarios when needed and points out what their tune caller is missing. If you just do what you're asked uncritically, you are crap at your job.
One of the primary skills of a being an acamedic, especially a top flight one, is the ability to think for one's self and not just blindly follow the herd......just following orders governor, is fine for some bloke working on a building site, less so for supposed world class academic.
It's quite funny how desperate the doom mongers scientists are getting now. Ministers seem to have finally woken up to the fact that models aren't real data. Their predictions of catastrophe were wrong in July when the government chose to ignore predictions of 7k per day hospitalised and that's going to really hurt them this time around.
Worse then is that we knew what Delta was likely to do having seen other countries open up and they still got it hopelessly wrong. If they can't get their predictions right with Delta then what are the chances they are even in the right ballpark with Omicron?
I've heard that the Spectator and Telegraph pieces by Fraser Nelson on how the government modellers operate has been getting a lot of airtime today with reactions predictably unimpressed.
If we don't go into lockdown it will be because the modellers decided to start colouring outside the lines and got caught in the act.
I'm interested to know why the doom mongers decided to behave like this in the first place. There must be a reason.
1) Fear of the public inquiry, and being blamed for people dying 2) A career of making models, the results from which never actually mattered in the real world 3) Over-focusing on the downside risk due to being overly cautious and risk-averse by nature, and also because they weren't being asked to model costs from lockdown measures and offset them against the costs from not doing anything 4) [The conspiracy theory] Giddiness from being important, having their voices heard in the corridors of power, and being able to actually impact public health in [what they believe is] a positive way, and unwillingness to give that up
Deepti Gurdasani @dgurdasani1 · 2h they modelled all scenarios, and their best case scenario was 2000-3000 admissions/day which is double to triple the levels now. Worst case scenarios were much much worse.
===
Fraser Nelson says they didn't based on his chat with Medley.
They absolutely did not model ALL scenarios, including ones influenced by REAL WORLD DATA (SA, plus actual data on how the vaccines and boosters are holding up). They were asked to give scary stories and have done so.
Getting a bit sick of 'blame the politicians, not the modellers' line as well. Every modeller in every field reports in to someone else who sets the remit. But every modeller worth their salt raises issues, creates their own scenarios when needed and points out what their tune caller is missing. If you just do what you're asked uncritically, you are crap at your job.
In addition to that, you have to be up for the fight when whoever commissioned your work misuses it in a press release/tweet/paper.
You shouldn't detail your caveats then wash your hands of it. I'm got into some furious spats over this before (usually lose, but at least I try).
Spurs kicked out of Europe. Pretty strict. But it would have helped with Vax rates if the FA had been so firm. Would have helped EFC too.
EPL should have followed US sports approach. Basically not vaxxed you can't practice / travel./ attend meetings withour a whole load of hassle and if your team has an outbreak and you aren't vaxxed, the unvaxxed get the blame. So it quickly terms into a collective thing, you either get on board for the good of the whole team or you are risking the whole team.
US sports are now 90+ % vaxxed.
The UK is 90+% vaxxed without any such measures.
Why aren't athletes?
WhatsApp conspiracy nonsense.
Why are athletes more vulnerable to such conspiracy nonsense than the general population?
Or is it just an age thing?
Anecdotally my students tell me its an extension of 'clean eating' into not putting ANYTHING into your body that isn't organic (yes, i know!). Some of them will not even take a paracetamol. This is including my pharmacy students.
A huge number of Americans think that more people die in plane crashes than in car crashes,
That really surprises me, air travel has long been pitched as "the safest form of transport", and car crashes are common enough that most people probably see one or the results of one every few months or so.
Indeed so. But if you add up deaths in plane crashes and deaths in car crashes, purely from watching the national evening news, the reported plane crash deaths are a much higher number.
It’s totally irrational, but the reality is that 30,000 people die on US roads each year, two orders of magnitude more than die on commercial aircraft. Even including private planes and sporting aviation, the number of aircraft deaths is still usually only three figures.
The Salience Bias. The more common something is, the less attention people pay to it, and vice versa. A murder in Iceland is shocking because they hardly ever happen for example.
On the difficulty of deciding on a lockdown given currently available information
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp Using deaths or hopsitalisations (which are very lagged indicators) as a marker of Omicron wave's potential severity when cases have risen so rapidly and only reached high levels in the last week is pure abuse of statistics from Heneghan.
Simply put the publicly available data isn't good enough to make any decision regardless of people's viewpoints.
She doesn't understand irony, does she?
As to why dead and hospitalisation haven't taken off (yet)
Fortunately there are no days coming up where different family generations meet up.
I think at times like this 7-day averages are a little unhelpful - they give the impression of exponential growth when early indications are that that period is over and we may well have peaked. A day by day graph doesn't allow for the pattern of some days of the week reporting more than others, but gives a much more immediate picture.
Deepti Gurdasani @dgurdasani1 · 2h they modelled all scenarios, and their best case scenario was 2000-3000 admissions/day which is double to triple the levels now. Worst case scenarios were much much worse.
===
Fraser Nelson says they didn't based on his chat with Medley.
They absolutely did not model ALL scenarios, including ones influenced by REAL WORLD DATA (SA, plus actual data on how the vaccines and boosters are holding up). They were asked to give scary stories and have done so.
Getting a bit sick of 'blame the politicians, not the modellers' line as well. Every modeller in every field reports in to someone else who sets the remit. But every modeller worth their salt raises issues, creates their own scenarios when needed and points out what their tune caller is missing. If you just do what you're asked uncritically, you are crap at your job.
One of the primary skills of a being an acamedic, especially a top flight one, is the ability to think for one's self and not just blindly follow the herd......just following orders governor, is fine for some bloke working on a building site, less so for supposed world class academic.
But at least we didn't go and decide to March on Poland, we were just obeying orders, Jawohl!
Deepti Gurdasani @dgurdasani1 · 2h they modelled all scenarios, and their best case scenario was 2000-3000 admissions/day which is double to triple the levels now. Worst case scenarios were much much worse.
===
Fraser Nelson says they didn't based on his chat with Medley.
They absolutely did not model ALL scenarios, including ones influenced by REAL WORLD DATA (SA, plus actual data on how the vaccines and boosters are holding up). They were asked to give scary stories and have done so.
I think you are giving too much influence on a set of data (SA) that for a lot of reasons many people are ignoring.
My issue is that we are doing stuff based on the old infection / R0 rates of the original Covid and Delta. With Omicron, there is zero point locking things down now - it's just too late to make anything beyond a token effort and I really do suspect that even a full lockdown won't make any real world difference to hospital figures.
No, I'm not. I also give reference to real world studies on how the vaccines are holding up, plus at least two mechanisms for why omicron may be milder.
I agree that lockdown won't work now, and I think many would ignore it, especially on the 25th. Are the police really going to go door to door, checking who is inside?
It's quite funny how desperate the doom mongers scientists are getting now. Ministers seem to have finally woken up to the fact that models aren't real data. Their predictions of catastrophe were wrong in July when the government chose to ignore predictions of 7k per day hospitalised and that's going to really hurt them this time around.
Worse then is that we knew what Delta was likely to do having seen other countries open up and they still got it hopelessly wrong. If they can't get their predictions right with Delta then what are the chances they are even in the right ballpark with Omicron?
I've heard that the Spectator and Telegraph pieces by Fraser Nelson on how the government modellers operate has been getting a lot of airtime today with reactions predictably unimpressed.
If we don't go into lockdown it will be because the modellers decided to start colouring outside the lines and got caught in the act.
I'm interested to know why the doom mongers decided to behave like this in the first place. There must be a reason.
1) Fear of the public inquiry, and being blamed for people dying 2) A career of making models, the results from which never actually mattered in the real world 3) Over-focusing on the downside risk due to being overly cautious and risk-averse by nature, and also because they weren't being asked to model costs from lockdown measures and offset them against the costs from not doing anything 4) [The conspiracy theory] Giddiness from being important, having their voices heard in the corridors of power, and being able to actually impact public health in [what they believe is] a positive way, and unwillingness to give that up
It’s not particularly conspiratorial, to note that there are a lot of people who have done very well from the pandemic, in terms of profile and earnings, and would be quite happy to see it continue for a few more years.
There’s another group of political commentators who really dislike the government, mostly over leaving the EU, who have at times come across as if they’re cheering for the virus.
On the difficulty of deciding on a lockdown given currently available information
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp Using deaths or hopsitalisations (which are very lagged indicators) as a marker of Omicron wave's potential severity when cases have risen so rapidly and only reached high levels in the last week is pure abuse of statistics from Heneghan.
Simply put the publicly available data isn't good enough to make any decision regardless of people's viewpoints.
I have no time whatsoever for Pagel. But I probably agree with her last paragraph.
My conclusion would be that you don't take a decision which will go far beyond reasonable impositions of the state on individuals, ruin countless livelihoods and do incalculable long-term damage without rather more evidence than you currently have. Both decisions have an element of risk. Not locking down may be damaging. But locking down will definitely be damaging.
But what if waiting until you know how bad it is means - if it is bad - that either it's now too late to act or you have to act stronger and for longer? I think this is the dilemma we have. Really difficult.
I think Stuart’s right. In 10 years time nobody will remember having voted for it. Not even Charles.
Boris is a corpse, too. He’ll be lucky to last into Spring.
What a frabjous day, though it’s a bit chilly here in Portugal after several days of balmy, t-shirt weather.
I don't see how brexit is dead. Its over. We are out. To make brexit dead surely implies rejoin?
Indeed we will be dealing with it forever. Brexit might one day be over as a state of mind, but the fact of it remains.
I'm not convinced a Tory coup where anti lockdown Truss or Sunak gets chosen in the midst of a pandemic meltdown is optimal timing.
The quicker Johnson is gone, the better. Even Rishi and Truss are improvements.
Neither will restore Tory fortunes; but that’s a different matter.
I suspect his mps want him to continue for a while to absorb the flak and I would expect post the May locals they will act
I agree with you. Also best for Truss, as the NI changes will have kicked in.
I prefer Rishi but that choice is upto his mps and then the members which this time I will not be one
Rishi represents the polish and connections that money can buy. If you like that and think that's helpful in solving the nation's problems then go for it. I think that there others that might be a little more connected.
It would also suggest he knows how to deal with finance unlike labour whose only answer to any question is spend billions and billions with no care as to how it is paid for
You might like to look up the CV of Rachel Reeves.
I like Rachel but not labour's throw billions at each and every problem
£37 billion thrown at Test and Trace. Described as an "eye watering waste of money" which failed to achieve its objective.
But at least the money was spent with the "right sort of people"
The issue with trying to use test and trace has been an issue all along - asymptomatic and pre-symtpomatic transmission. Once you have that in mix I'd argue its almost impossible to shut down transmission chains with the interconnected lives we lead. Even with the original strain, even with the first lockdown, we didn't reach zero covid, even in Scotland. However, it is possible to see an effect. In the SW, the scandal of the testing failures at Immensa genuinly did seem to lead to an increase in cases as false negatives went about their business and spread the disease. I was wrong on the surge that followed - I initially thought it was just catch up testing, but the scale suggests it wasn't.
We are not at the point where the question needs to be - what do we gain by testing 1.6M a day? Transmission of omicron is so potent, and the original issues remain and asympto and pre-symptomatic spread. I'd argue now we should focus on testing in secondary care at point of admission, and use the money saved to improve ventilationg and air filtration in places where it might do some good - care homes, hospitals and schools.
It would have been more effective to hand out LFTs to every household. People do seem to use them and would tell their friends and family. Even the 20 year olds I know do it because they worry about parents and grandparents.
There is a LFT "census" idea being floated in Scotland. Everyone does one on the same day.
I really like the idea from an analytical perspective, but it does feel a bit Big Brother.
How is this different from the population monitoring already being done?
If everyone tests on the same day with LFTs, they get instant results, and there is a chance of breaking chains of transmission. Might have worked in 2020/2021 - but with the highly infectious variants, you'd need 100% compliance, which is obviously impossible.
Surely there will be a large number of pre-symptomatic and pre-LFT positive people?
These will be the people spreading it, and you won't catch them.
Of course. A single day's testing would be insufficient.
But that kind of program. properly timed, could have replaced much of the track and trace infrastructure (and quite a lot of the PCR testing) over the last two years for about a quarter of the cost.
It's quite funny how desperate the doom mongers scientists are getting now. Ministers seem to have finally woken up to the fact that models aren't real data. Their predictions of catastrophe were wrong in July when the government chose to ignore predictions of 7k per day hospitalised and that's going to really hurt them this time around.
Worse then is that we knew what Delta was likely to do having seen other countries open up and they still got it hopelessly wrong. If they can't get their predictions right with Delta then what are the chances they are even in the right ballpark with Omicron?
I've heard that the Spectator and Telegraph pieces by Fraser Nelson on how the government modellers operate has been getting a lot of airtime today with reactions predictably unimpressed.
If we don't go into lockdown it will be because the modellers decided to start colouring outside the lines and got caught in the act.
I'm interested to know why the doom mongers decided to behave like this in the first place. There must be a reason.
1) Fear of the public inquiry, and being blamed for people dying 2) A career of making models, the results from which never actually mattered in the real world 3) Over-focusing on the downside risk due to being overly cautious and risk-averse by nature, and also because they weren't being asked to model costs from lockdown measures and offset them against the costs from not doing anything 4) [The conspiracy theory] Giddiness from being important, having their voices heard in the corridors of power, and being able to actually impact public health in [what they believe is] a positive way, and unwillingness to give that up
It’s not particularly conspiratorial, to note that there are a lot of people who have done very well from the pandemic, in terms of profile and earnings, and would be quite happy to see it continue for a few more years.
There’s another group of political commentators who really dislike the government, mostly over leaving the EU, who have at times come across as if they’re cheering for the virus.
Yes, agreed, and I was trying to phrase it in as non-tin-hat-wearing a way as possible. But I still think if you believe that argument then you're basically saying the modellers are doing it on purpose, and I prefer to believe they're just not very good at recognising and overcoming their own biases. Which you can do with any of the others, although you have to squint a bit with the first one.
Based on the weekend reports could be a Cabinet row. Sunak, Truss and Rees Mogg and Kwarteng opposed to more restrictions, only Gove and Javid in favour.
A huge number of Americans think that more people die in plane crashes than in car crashes,
That really surprises me, air travel has long been pitched as "the safest form of transport", and car crashes are common enough that most people probably see one or the results of one every few months or so.
Indeed so. But if you add up deaths in plane crashes and deaths in car crashes, purely from watching the national evening news, the reported plane crash deaths are a much higher number.
It’s totally irrational, but the reality is that 30,000 people die on US roads each year, two orders of magnitude more than die on commercial aircraft. Even including private planes and sporting aviation, the number of aircraft deaths is still usually only three figures.
The Salience Bias. The more common something is, the less attention people pay to it, and vice versa. A murder in Iceland is shocking because they hardly ever happen for example.
Yes, and car crashes, even fatal ones, don’t usually make the news because they happen all the time. Unless it’s Princess Diana, or Ayrton Senna.
Will there be cheese and wine? It's a work meeting after all
Derbyshire Police @DerbysPolice · Mar 26, 2020 Despite posts yesterday highlighting issues of people still visiting the #PeakDistrict despite government guidance, the message is still not getting through. @DerPolDroneUnit have been out at beauty spots across the county, and this footage was captured at #CurbarEdge last night. https://pic.twitter.com/soxWvMl0ls
Given how little the likes of Pagel are off the media, i wonder how much of their own research / day job they have actually got done the past 2 years.
As a worker in the harsh world of the extended public sector, I'm sure there'll be big repercussions for ignoring day jobs for months on end.
Public impact* is actually a key metric these days, though I'm not familiar with how the new REF implements it (there are advantages in being retired).
On the difficulty of deciding on a lockdown given currently available information
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp Using deaths or hopsitalisations (which are very lagged indicators) as a marker of Omicron wave's potential severity when cases have risen so rapidly and only reached high levels in the last week is pure abuse of statistics from Heneghan.
Simply put the publicly available data isn't good enough to make any decision regardless of people's viewpoints.
She doesn't understand irony, does she?
As to why dead and hospitalisation haven't taken off (yet)
Fortunately there are no days coming up where different family generations meet up.
I think at times like this 7-day averages are a little unhelpful - they give the impression of exponential growth when early indications are that that period is over and we may well have peaked. A day by day graph doesn't allow for the pattern of some days of the week reporting more than others, but gives a much more immediate picture.
Day by day data just shows us waiting for the next weekly peak.....
Why do they stand for this? Why aren’t they jumping up and down over this bullshit government by quad?
One has told the Telegraph they will resign if another lockdown.
But yes, this is the most supine cabinet we have had in a while. Pathetic. Of course, they are basically low grade courtiers rather than cabinet ministers.
I think the one big thing that makes lockdown unnecessary here is the age stratification of the booster rollout.
Which is fine, but the problem here is that the government models all used modelled 85% booster efficacy against severe symptoms rather than 93-95% observed efficacy. They are saying 2-3x as many people will get severe symptoms than actually will which is where the doom predictions come from. Plus their inexplicable decision to throw out their own study data showing Omicron is an upper rather than lower respiratory disease and suddenly the predictions of 6000 dead per day come into focus. With those two changes we could potentially cut that 6000 by over 80% which would make the range of deaths per day 120-1200, but that wouldn't lead to any decisions getting made so they threw out observed data in favour of modelled data.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 2m If there were a Tory leadership election now, who would run? Sunak, Truss, Mordaunt, Hunt, Javid, Raab, Gove, Zahawi...?
Although one can never tell who will be ok until they actually do the job, the ones that come over as ok for me are:
Sunak, Hunt, Javid, Zahawi
Those who are a no-no are:
Raab, Gove
As for the other two I have mixed feelings about Truss and I don't know enough about Mordaunt, but generally feel positive.
Javid, has, for me, blotted his copybook this last few weeks. I thought he was one of the brighter ones. He started out by actually challenging the detail of the modelling he was given. But he now seems surprised by the assumptions being made in sage's doomsday models. Not him, any more, for me.
The more time goes on, the more I favour Sunak. If Zahawi is a serious contender, him next. Then who? I really don't know. Truss, I suppose - not wildly excited about her abilities but I'd place her on my side of the lockdown argument.
Not my choice, of course.
Javid , is just your average duff Tory YES man, the rest you mention are no better, more faces than the town clock.
After nearly 7 years, in April I'm moving on from best daily reporting job + the most wonderful team in the business. It's been an honour and an amazing ride - more to come in 2022! With love + thanks to all at @BBCPolitics
On the difficulty of deciding on a lockdown given currently available information
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp Using deaths or hopsitalisations (which are very lagged indicators) as a marker of Omicron wave's potential severity when cases have risen so rapidly and only reached high levels in the last week is pure abuse of statistics from Heneghan.
Simply put the publicly available data isn't good enough to make any decision regardless of people's viewpoints.
I have no time whatsoever for Pagel. But I probably agree with her last paragraph.
My conclusion would be that you don't take a decision which will go far beyond reasonable impositions of the state on individuals, ruin countless livelihoods and do incalculable long-term damage without rather more evidence than you currently have. Both decisions have an element of risk. Not locking down may be damaging. But locking down will definitely be damaging.
But what if waiting until you know how bad it is means - if it is bad - that either it's now too late to act or you have to act stronger and for longer? I think this is the dilemma we have. Really difficult.
Its a real dilemna. But a lockdown before Christmas would be hugely damaging for people.
I have the privilege of being Santa for a local Lions club, and have had three evening collecting runs so far. On every time the nicest thing is seeing families gathering at this time of year. Trying to stop that again, when the danger is not clear, would be, in my view, very wrong indeed. But if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter. If the government is wrong, lives could be lost.
Will there be cheese and wine? It's a work meeting after all
Derbyshire Police @DerbysPolice · Mar 26, 2020 Despite posts yesterday highlighting issues of people still visiting the #PeakDistrict despite government guidance, the message is still not getting through. @DerPolDroneUnit have been out at beauty spots across the county, and this footage was captured at #CurbarEdge last night. https://pic.twitter.com/soxWvMl0ls
Will there be cheese and wine? It's a work meeting after all
Derbyshire Police @DerbysPolice · Mar 26, 2020 Despite posts yesterday highlighting issues of people still visiting the #PeakDistrict despite government guidance, the message is still not getting through. @DerPolDroneUnit have been out at beauty spots across the county, and this footage was captured at #CurbarEdge last night. https://pic.twitter.com/soxWvMl0ls
Given how little the likes of Pagel are off the media, i wonder how much of their own research / day job they have actually got done the past 2 years.
As a worker in the harsh world of the extended public sector, I'm sure there'll be big repercussions for ignoring day jobs for months on end.
Public impact* is actually a key metric these days, though I'm not familiar with how the new REF implements it (there are advantages in being retired).
*Edit: in the media, for instance.
But it isn't public impact of their actual research is it? It's pontificating on rolling news about epidemiology and public health when their research is actually in some else e.g. OR of outcomes in A&E - to take one example.
On the difficulty of deciding on a lockdown given currently available information
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp Using deaths or hopsitalisations (which are very lagged indicators) as a marker of Omicron wave's potential severity when cases have risen so rapidly and only reached high levels in the last week is pure abuse of statistics from Heneghan.
Simply put the publicly available data isn't good enough to make any decision regardless of people's viewpoints.
I have no time whatsoever for Pagel. But I probably agree with her last paragraph.
My conclusion would be that you don't take a decision which will go far beyond reasonable impositions of the state on individuals, ruin countless livelihoods and do incalculable long-term damage without rather more evidence than you currently have. Both decisions have an element of risk. Not locking down may be damaging. But locking down will definitely be damaging.
But what if waiting until you know how bad it is means - if it is bad - that either it's now too late to act or you have to act stronger and for longer? I think this is the dilemma we have. Really difficult.
Its a real dilemna. But a lockdown before Christmas would be hugely damaging for people.
I have the privilege of being Santa for a local Lions club, and have had three evening collecting runs so far. On every time the nicest thing is seeing families gathering at this time of year. Trying to stop that again, when the danger is not clear, would be, in my view, very wrong indeed. But if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter. If the government is wrong, lives could be lost.
As Ash says in Alien, you have my sympathy.
No, the government doesn't have my sympathy, they completely failed to plan for this with a booster programme that would get ~45m third/booster doses done by December 17th. There was a huge amount of complacency surrounding the vaccine programme after the fast start and now they want us to pay the price for their stupidity. Well fuck that.
Will there be cheese and wine? It's a work meeting after all
Derbyshire Police @DerbysPolice · Mar 26, 2020 Despite posts yesterday highlighting issues of people still visiting the #PeakDistrict despite government guidance, the message is still not getting through. @DerPolDroneUnit have been out at beauty spots across the county, and this footage was captured at #CurbarEdge last night. https://pic.twitter.com/soxWvMl0ls
Fraser Nelson deserves an OBE or a knighthood for his questioning of SAGE modelling. After those questions and answers every model from SAGE needs to be thrown out and told to go back to the drawing board modelling all scenarios and their likelihood not just the ones of doom.
That nobody had asked those questions before now is truly shocking.
Based on the weekend reports could be a Cabinet row. Sunak, Truss and Rees Mogg and Kwarteng opposed to more restrictions, only Gove and Javid in favour.
Is Gove still on the quad making all the decisions? I seem to recall those who oppose never end lockdowns were pleased he had been move away from day-to-day covid decisions in quad as he was no longer cabinet office minister.
Fraser Nelson deserves an OBE or a knighthood for his questioning of SAGE modelling. After those questions and answers every model from SAGE needs to be thrown out and told to go back to the drawing board modelling all scenarios and their likelihood not just the ones of doom.
That nobody had asked those questions before now is truly shocking.
I was surprised that the scientist was so blase about it in the twitter thread. Perhaps he didn't know who Fraser Nelson was.
"@Mark_J_Harper Appalling, if true. This isn’t how to do things. Big decisions, with consequences for everyone, should be taken properly: Right pointing backhand index data & information in advance, chance to consider it calmly, good questions asked & answered. Attempts by the PM to bounce Cabinet aren’t acceptable."
"@MrHarryCole Ministers not yet shown any papers. Which is a sure-fire sign of an expected rubber-stamping.. if the last few years are anything to go by."
Will there be cheese and wine? It's a work meeting after all
No. At the moment you can still legally have a party after work, so what would the point be as they would not be able to sit around and laugh at the little people who are being fined £10k for doing exactly what they are doing.
A huge number of Americans think that more people die in plane crashes than in car crashes,
That really surprises me, air travel has long been pitched as "the safest form of transport", and car crashes are common enough that most people probably see one or the results of one every few months or so.
Indeed so. But if you add up deaths in plane crashes and deaths in car crashes, purely from watching the national evening news, the reported plane crash deaths are a much higher number.
It’s totally irrational, but the reality is that 30,000 people die on US roads each year, two orders of magnitude more than die on commercial aircraft. Even including private planes and sporting aviation, the number of aircraft deaths is still usually only three figures.
The Salience Bias. The more common something is, the less attention people pay to it, and vice versa. A murder in Iceland is shocking because they hardly ever happen for example.
This used to work for 'examples of Boris Johnson being a clueless buffoon' - but no longer it seems.
but of course Brexit is over because we are no longer part of the EU, and we are not going back.
If Brexit was over we wouldn't need Truss to negotiate Brexit...
She's not. She's negotiating a trading arrangement with the EU. Its complicated by the GFA. There is no easy solution.
Brexit is the trade deals. While some people may think Brexit is over - it really isn't. Wait until January 1st when the real paperwork is required for both sides and France really start to be anal about errors.
Based on the weekend reports could be a Cabinet row. Sunak, Truss and Rees Mogg and Kwarteng opposed to more restrictions, only Gove and Javid in favour.
Javid started off well putting needed pressure on the JCVI after their stalling under Hancock.
But now he seems to have very swiftly 'gone native' and surrendered to the Blob. He's lost all my respect, he should be able to see through and understand these 'models', why can't he?
I was in Asda briefly this morning and despite Drakeford's mask mandate many were just not wearing them and some seem to think they are worn below the nose
I really do not understand people who have a disregard for their fellow citizens
On the difficulty of deciding on a lockdown given currently available information
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp Using deaths or hopsitalisations (which are very lagged indicators) as a marker of Omicron wave's potential severity when cases have risen so rapidly and only reached high levels in the last week is pure abuse of statistics from Heneghan.
Simply put the publicly available data isn't good enough to make any decision regardless of people's viewpoints.
I have no time whatsoever for Pagel. But I probably agree with her last paragraph.
My conclusion would be that you don't take a decision which will go far beyond reasonable impositions of the state on individuals, ruin countless livelihoods and do incalculable long-term damage without rather more evidence than you currently have. Both decisions have an element of risk. Not locking down may be damaging. But locking down will definitely be damaging.
But what if waiting until you know how bad it is means - if it is bad - that either it's now too late to act or you have to act stronger and for longer? I think this is the dilemma we have. Really difficult.
It's a risk. But you can't go doing something as fundamentally illiberal and damaging as a lockdown 'just in case'. You have to have some pretty strong evidence that the reverse will be worse, and we don't have that. My suspicion is that we never will, but that is based upon early indications from South Africa etc. where I concede the context is different. 50% of our population are triple jabbed. 90%+ have antibodies of some sort. The population is changing its behaviour anyway. Deaths are the lowest that they've been since mid-August (they may rise, but they may not). Hospitalisations are within the bounds they have been since summer, and far, far short of what was thought to be acceptable when we opened up.
There is certainly a risk. But we can't go forwards with the threat of lockdown always hanging over us whenever there is a risk, because there will always be a risk.
I have some sympathy for policymakers, because it's much easier to say this as an anonymous bloke on the internet than as the person who will be the target for both real outrage and manufactured outrage and who may lose their job as a result. Though they should be far, far better at questioning the models than they are. I have less sympathy with civil servants and modellers who appear to be trying to cook the books to engineer a lockdown.
Given how little the likes of Pagel are off the media, i wonder how much of their own research / day job they have actually got done the past 2 years.
As a worker in the harsh world of the extended public sector, I'm sure there'll be big repercussions for ignoring day jobs for months on end.
Public impact* is actually a key metric these days, though I'm not familiar with how the new REF implements it (there are advantages in being retired).
*Edit: in the media, for instance.
But it isn't public impact of their actual research is it? It's pontificating on rolling news about epidemiology and public health when their research is actually in some else e.g. OR of outcomes in A&E - to take one example.
That does depend on how the REF rules work. indeed. It is also entirely possible that some universities have their own scoring systems which rate more general appearance scores.
Based on the weekend reports could be a Cabinet row. Sunak, Truss and Rees Mogg and Kwarteng opposed to more restrictions, only Gove and Javid in favour.
Javid started off well putting needed pressure on the JCVI after their stalling under Hancock.
But now he seems to have very swiftly 'gone native' and surrendered to the Blob. He's lost all my respect, he should be able to see through and understand these 'models', why can't he?
Because his permanent secretary probably keeps saying "you'll never be PM if you're the health secretary that oversaw an NHS collapse" and paying for lockdowns doesn't fall into his remit so who cares about that anyway.
Fraser Nelson deserves an OBE or a knighthood for his questioning of SAGE modelling. After those questions and answers every model from SAGE needs to be thrown out and told to go back to the drawing board modelling all scenarios and their likelihood not just the ones of doom.
That nobody had asked those questions before now is truly shocking.
I was surprised that the scientist was so blase about it in the twitter thread. Perhaps he didn't know who Fraser Nelson was.
Given how little the likes of Pagel are off the media, i wonder how much of their own research / day job they have actually got done the past 2 years.
As a worker in the harsh world of the extended public sector, I'm sure there'll be big repercussions for ignoring day jobs for months on end.
Public impact* is actually a key metric these days, though I'm not familiar with how the new REF implements it (there are advantages in being retired).
*Edit: in the media, for instance.
But it isn't public impact of their actual research is it? It's pontificating on rolling news about epidemiology and public health when their research is actually in some else e.g. OR of outcomes in A&E - to take one example.
That does depend on how the REF rules work. indeed. It is also entirely possible that some universities have their own scoring systems which rate more general appearance scores.
Oh, I'm sure they do. I mean Prof Pagel has UCL splashed across the bottom of the screen all the time she is on. Nice publicity as kids weigh up their UCAS form choices or whatever it is called these days.
I was in Asda briefly this morning and despite Drakeford's mask mandate many were just not wearing them and some seem to think they are worn below the nose
I really do not understand people who have a disregard for their fellow citizens
Getting a bit sick of 'blame the politicians, not the modellers' line as well. Every modeller in every field reports in to someone else who sets the remit. But every modeller worth their salt raises issues, creates their own scenarios when needed and points out what their tune caller is missing. If you just do what you're asked uncritically, you are crap at your job.
In addition to that, you have to be up for the fight when whoever commissioned your work misuses it in a press release/tweet/paper.
You shouldn't detail your caveats then wash your hands of it. I'm got into some furious spats over this before (usually lose, but at least I try).
I was chatting with a senior civil service official who I happen to know - she works as a head of department in a different controversial area which I won't identify - about how the Ministerial advice process currently works.
1. The Ministerial teams with an interest in the issue are identified - possibly though not usually including colleagues from other Ministries. Many will have their own agendas to push - more hawkish on this, higher-spending on that - from personal preference or Ministerial steer. The Treasury team, for instance, always start from the viewpoint of "spend less money". 2. The lead team on the issue will draft a Ministerial paper with options, typically three. Ostensibly neutral, they will often be engineered so as to guide Ministers to the middle one, and the others may be labelled "not recommended". 3. The other teams with an interest will then attack the draft from their viewpoints, and eventually an agreed compromise paper will go up to the Minister, with options (which may be now be different from the original draft). 4. The Minister will then make a choice (which could be to refer it back for redrafting, but this is unusual), and that's the policy unless a more senior Minister/the PM overrules it.
Steps 1-3 are partly manipulative, but there are dangers as some Ministers are known to be "all too ready" (depending on your viewpoint) to opt for a "not recommended" option, without having obviously thought it through. This constrains civil servants top make sure they can live with all the outcomes, rather than put "slaughter of the first-born" as one option.
This is perhaps all roughly what we'd expect (echoes of Yes Minister, though not with the bias to "do nothing" implied in that series), but it's actually a bit different from what I've found in local government, where the full-time officials generally present an oven-ready single proposal to councillors, rather than a choice of options. I've made it made of my work to encourage them to the option-based approach, but I do realise the risk of manipulation.
After nearly 7 years, in April I'm moving on from best daily reporting job + the most wonderful team in the business. It's been an honour and an amazing ride - more to come in 2022! With love + thanks to all at @BBCPolitics
On the difficulty of deciding on a lockdown given currently available information
Prof. Christina Pagel @chrischirp Using deaths or hopsitalisations (which are very lagged indicators) as a marker of Omicron wave's potential severity when cases have risen so rapidly and only reached high levels in the last week is pure abuse of statistics from Heneghan.
Simply put the publicly available data isn't good enough to make any decision regardless of people's viewpoints.
I have no time whatsoever for Pagel. But I probably agree with her last paragraph.
My conclusion would be that you don't take a decision which will go far beyond reasonable impositions of the state on individuals, ruin countless livelihoods and do incalculable long-term damage without rather more evidence than you currently have. Both decisions have an element of risk. Not locking down may be damaging. But locking down will definitely be damaging.
But what if waiting until you know how bad it is means - if it is bad - that either it's now too late to act or you have to act stronger and for longer? I think this is the dilemma we have. Really difficult.
Its a real dilemna. But a lockdown before Christmas would be hugely damaging for people.
I have the privilege of being Santa for a local Lions club, and have had three evening collecting runs so far. On every time the nicest thing is seeing families gathering at this time of year. Trying to stop that again, when the danger is not clear, would be, in my view, very wrong indeed. But if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter. If the government is wrong, lives could be lost.
As Ash says in Alien, you have my sympathy.
Yep. I see little chance of a legal lockdown this week myself. Christmas will go ahead with people trusted to do their own risk assessment. And then, well we'll soon find out so not much point crystal balling.
I was in Asda briefly this morning and despite Drakeford's mask mandate many were just not wearing them and some seem to think they are worn below the nose
I really do not understand people who have a disregard for their fellow citizens
Looks like Mark Harper is preparing a Tory counter operation against lockdown already. Time to remove the PM.
The problem is they do not have the numbers yet and to have a successful challenge not only do the 54 letters need to go in, but they have to win the vote otherwise that keep Boris there for another year
Comments
{wonders idly if he bought his furniture}
He is abusing the statistics.
The more time goes on, the more I favour Sunak. If Zahawi is a serious contender, him next. Then who? I really don't know. Truss, I suppose - not wildly excited about her abilities but I'd place her on my side of the lockdown argument.
Not my choice, of course.
https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1472890299424940038
Started out as minister for vaccine credit taking saying all the right things, as time has gone on become clear he'll say whatever he's asked to say, which is probably why he was given such a cushy job.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.160663234]
Sunak 3.25 / 3.4
Truss 4.1 / 4.7
@dgurdasani1
·
2h
they modelled all scenarios, and their best case scenario was 2000-3000 admissions/day which is double to triple the levels now. Worst case scenarios were much much worse.
===
Fraser Nelson says they didn't based on his chat with Medley.
Not that he was altogether successful...
I half expect our local to announce they are open for drinks today and tomorrow for similar reasons come 3pm or the press conference later on.
Might have worked in 2020/2021 - but with the highly infectious variants, you'd need 100% compliance, which is obviously impossible.
2-3k hospitalisations per day peak is not close to requiring action. Bias illustrated on 2 counts.
Worse then is that we knew what Delta was likely to do having seen other countries open up and they still got it hopelessly wrong. If they can't get their predictions right with Delta then what are the chances they are even in the right ballpark with Omicron?
I've heard that the Spectator and Telegraph pieces by Fraser Nelson on how the government modellers operate has been getting a lot of airtime today with reactions predictably unimpressed.
If we don't go into lockdown it will be because the modellers decided to start colouring outside the lines and got caught in the act.
These will be the people spreading it, and you won't catch them.
Why aren't athletes?
Wouldn't you go for that?
Or is it just an age thing?
Just a question from somebody who knows not much about the catering trade -
Would an option be to just shut down, lie low or do something else for a while, then when Covid looks reliably over, and if the desire and ambition remains, fire up again using the contacts and expertise amassed?
Also a massive bias toward extreme destruction of the hospitality trade caution on all sides.
When there’s not a pandemic on, I probably spend a few hundred hours in the car, and a few dozen hours on planes each year, which makes the car an order of magnitude more dangerous per hour than the plane.
The ones who have had lab time restricted because of covid-safe rules etc will be more impacted. We shut down lab work for three months, and then have had part time working in places to minimise contact, often in some of the best ventilated spaces you will find (e.g. my chemistry lab is say 10m x 6m with 10 fume hoods that constantly extract the air). We are still made to wear masks in it...
My issue is that we are doing stuff based on the old infection / R0 rates of the original Covid and Delta. With Omicron, there is zero point locking things down now - it's just too late to make anything beyond a token effort and I really do suspect that even a full lockdown won't make any real world difference to hospital figures.
2) A career of making models, the results from which never actually mattered in the real world
3) Over-focusing on the downside risk due to being overly cautious and risk-averse by nature, and also because they weren't being asked to model costs from lockdown measures and offset them against the costs from not doing anything
4) [The conspiracy theory] Giddiness from being important, having their voices heard in the corridors of power, and being able to actually impact public health in [what they believe is] a positive way, and unwillingness to give that up
You shouldn't detail your caveats then wash your hands of it. I'm got into some furious spats over this before (usually lose, but at least I try).
I agree that lockdown won't work now, and I think many would ignore it, especially on the 25th. Are the police really going to go door to door, checking who is inside?
There’s another group of political commentators who really dislike the government, mostly over leaving the EU, who have at times come across as if they’re cheering for the virus.
Ministers not yet shown any papers.
Which is a sure-fire sign of an expected rubber-stamping.. if the last few years are anything to go by.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1472891238298836992?s=20
Not even if the bread was stale.
A single day's testing would be insufficient.
But that kind of program. properly timed, could have replaced much of the track and trace infrastructure (and quite a lot of the PCR testing) over the last two years for about a quarter of the cost.
@DerbysPolice
·
Mar 26, 2020
Despite posts yesterday highlighting issues of people still visiting the #PeakDistrict despite government guidance, the message is still not getting through. @DerPolDroneUnit have been out at beauty spots across the county, and this footage was captured at #CurbarEdge last night. https://pic.twitter.com/soxWvMl0ls
*Edit: in the media, for instance.
But yes, this is the most supine cabinet we have had in a while. Pathetic. Of course, they are basically low grade courtiers rather than cabinet ministers.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1472899699975860225?s=20
I have the privilege of being Santa for a local Lions club, and have had three evening collecting runs so far. On every time the nicest thing is seeing families gathering at this time of year. Trying to stop that again, when the danger is not clear, would be, in my view, very wrong indeed.
But if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter. If the government is wrong, lives could be lost.
As Ash says in Alien, you have my sympathy.
That nobody had asked those questions before now is truly shocking.
Appalling, if true. This isn’t how to do things.
Big decisions, with consequences for everyone, should be taken properly:
Right pointing backhand index data & information in advance, chance to consider it calmly, good questions asked & answered.
Attempts by the PM to bounce Cabinet aren’t acceptable."
https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper/status/1472897605596323844
In reply to:
"@MrHarryCole
Ministers not yet shown any papers.
Which is a sure-fire sign of an expected rubber-stamping.. if the last few years are anything to go by."
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1472891238298836992
But now he seems to have very swiftly 'gone native' and surrendered to the Blob. He's lost all my respect, he should be able to see through and understand these 'models', why can't he?
I really do not understand people who have a disregard for their fellow citizens
50% of our population are triple jabbed.
90%+ have antibodies of some sort.
The population is changing its behaviour anyway.
Deaths are the lowest that they've been since mid-August (they may rise, but they may not).
Hospitalisations are within the bounds they have been since summer, and far, far short of what was thought to be acceptable when we opened up.
There is certainly a risk. But we can't go forwards with the threat of lockdown always hanging over us whenever there is a risk, because there will always be a risk.
I have some sympathy for policymakers, because it's much easier to say this as an anonymous bloke on the internet than as the person who will be the target for both real outrage and manufactured outrage and who may lose their job as a result. Though they should be far, far better at questioning the models than they are.
I have less sympathy with civil servants and modellers who appear to be trying to cook the books to engineer a lockdown.
1. The Ministerial teams with an interest in the issue are identified - possibly though not usually including colleagues from other Ministries. Many will have their own agendas to push - more hawkish on this, higher-spending on that - from personal preference or Ministerial steer. The Treasury team, for instance, always start from the viewpoint of "spend less money".
2. The lead team on the issue will draft a Ministerial paper with options, typically three. Ostensibly neutral, they will often be engineered so as to guide Ministers to the middle one, and the others may be labelled "not recommended".
3. The other teams with an interest will then attack the draft from their viewpoints, and eventually an agreed compromise paper will go up to the Minister, with options (which may be now be different from the original draft).
4. The Minister will then make a choice (which could be to refer it back for redrafting, but this is unusual), and that's the policy unless a more senior Minister/the PM overrules it.
Steps 1-3 are partly manipulative, but there are dangers as some Ministers are known to be "all too ready" (depending on your viewpoint) to opt for a "not recommended" option, without having obviously thought it through. This constrains civil servants top make sure they can live with all the outcomes, rather than put "slaughter of the first-born" as one option.
This is perhaps all roughly what we'd expect (echoes of Yes Minister, though not with the bias to "do nothing" implied in that series), but it's actually a bit different from what I've found in local government, where the full-time officials generally present an oven-ready single proposal to councillors, rather than a choice of options. I've made it made of my work to encourage them to the option-based approach, but I do realise the risk of manipulation.
I for one do not want that to happen