| ummm.... on 11:59 - Dec 18 with 2177 views | StokieBlue |
Some SAGE members are saying a post-Christmas circuit breaker will already be too late.
Clearly that's the only thing that may happen and even then the Tories are very reluctant so we will just have to see how it goes I guess.
SB |  |
|  |
| ummm.... on 12:00 - Dec 18 with 2152 views | Lord_Lucan |
They had better get a move on then as we've only had one reported Omicron death haven't we? |  |
| |
| ummm.... on 12:03 - Dec 18 with 2101 views | StokieBlue |
| ummm.... on 12:00 - Dec 18 by Lord_Lucan |
They had better get a move on then as we've only had one reported Omicron death haven't we? |
It's hard to say because not all labs can detected the s-gene dropout which is why the official Omicron number is 15000 or something but the scientists are saying in reality is probably 10x that at the very least.
There is also a variant of Omicron which isn't detectable at all without a full genetic analysis which isn't done on most PCR tests.
SB | |
| |
| ummm.... on 12:30 - Dec 18 with 1938 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
"Ummmm" sums that up quite nicely. |  |
| |
| ummm.... on 12:57 - Dec 18 with 1776 views | Trequartista |
I cannot see how this will happen, given what is happening in 30% double-vaccinated South Africa.
I saw some graphs the other day showing sage had wildly overestimated their predictions on 6 consecutive occasions. (Spectator website i think).
I'll put my money where my mouth is and say that we reach 1000 deaths a day I will promise not to post another word on here about covid. |  |
| |
| ummm.... on 12:59 - Dec 18 with 1751 views | ZXBlue |
| ummm.... on 12:57 - Dec 18 by Trequartista |
I cannot see how this will happen, given what is happening in 30% double-vaccinated South Africa.
I saw some graphs the other day showing sage had wildly overestimated their predictions on 6 consecutive occasions. (Spectator website i think).
I'll put my money where my mouth is and say that we reach 1000 deaths a day I will promise not to post another word on here about covid. |
Insuffifient time has passed for SA to be assessed.
SA people are younger and much fitter than we are. Far less obesity. |  | | |
| ummm.... on 13:06 - Dec 18 with 1706 views | Trequartista |
| ummm.... on 12:59 - Dec 18 by ZXBlue |
Insuffifient time has passed for SA to be assessed.
SA people are younger and much fitter than we are. Far less obesity. |
I think they've had it quite a while now. Even if it may be 6 weeks before death figures would peak, there would have to be ic units full of people in the run up to this. There are less than 200 on ventilation out of population of about 60 million.
There are differences for and against, someone mentioned it was summer there as well which i hadn't accounted for. But old and obese people still exist there just because there aren't so many, and they would still potentially fill ic units because of the sheer number of cases.
We'll see what happens and if i'm wrong i'll apologize and shut my mouth. | |
| |
| ummm.... on 13:08 - Dec 18 with 1692 views | ZXBlue |
| ummm.... on 13:06 - Dec 18 by Trequartista |
I think they've had it quite a while now. Even if it may be 6 weeks before death figures would peak, there would have to be ic units full of people in the run up to this. There are less than 200 on ventilation out of population of about 60 million.
There are differences for and against, someone mentioned it was summer there as well which i hadn't accounted for. But old and obese people still exist there just because there aren't so many, and they would still potentially fill ic units because of the sheer number of cases.
We'll see what happens and if i'm wrong i'll apologize and shut my mouth. |
Why do you assume that your analysis is likely to be better than that of professional experts in the field? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| ummm.... on 13:11 - Dec 18 with 1663 views | Trequartista |
| ummm.... on 13:08 - Dec 18 by ZXBlue |
Why do you assume that your analysis is likely to be better than that of professional experts in the field? |
They are professionals in epidemiology, not accurate prediction modelling. Other professionals disagree. Professor Tim Spector, for example. | |
| |
| ummm.... on 13:12 - Dec 18 with 1654 views | ZXBlue |
| ummm.... on 13:11 - Dec 18 by Trequartista |
They are professionals in epidemiology, not accurate prediction modelling. Other professionals disagree. Professor Tim Spector, for example. |
Link? | | | |
| ummm.... on 13:13 - Dec 18 with 1649 views | Swansea_Blue |
| ummm.... on 12:57 - Dec 18 by Trequartista |
I cannot see how this will happen, given what is happening in 30% double-vaccinated South Africa.
I saw some graphs the other day showing sage had wildly overestimated their predictions on 6 consecutive occasions. (Spectator website i think).
I'll put my money where my mouth is and say that we reach 1000 deaths a day I will promise not to post another word on here about covid. |
A lot's lost in the translation with this. E.g. the models may be suggesting a range of deaths according to different assumptions including, for example, a worst case scenario with no control measures. Newspapers jump on the worse case scenario as if it's a prediction. We then do something (lockdowns, maks, social distancing) and the actuals are lower than the upper most modelled ranges. Cue outrage at how the models are wrong and the scientists useless, especially from the selfish libertarian types such as those at the Spectator.
Models can't be wrong in that sense - they are used for what-ifs and to explore likely impacts of changes in the inputs, such as expected transmissibility, whether or not there are measures in place, etc. They're not supposed to be foolproof predictions (otherwise the scientists wouldn't piss about with viruses - they'd be cashing in on the lottery each week). They're the best guide we have and super important to trying to understand how things may develop, but still only a guide. |  |
| |
| ummm.... on 13:16 - Dec 18 with 1618 views | ZXBlue |
| ummm.... on 13:13 - Dec 18 by Swansea_Blue |
A lot's lost in the translation with this. E.g. the models may be suggesting a range of deaths according to different assumptions including, for example, a worst case scenario with no control measures. Newspapers jump on the worse case scenario as if it's a prediction. We then do something (lockdowns, maks, social distancing) and the actuals are lower than the upper most modelled ranges. Cue outrage at how the models are wrong and the scientists useless, especially from the selfish libertarian types such as those at the Spectator.
Models can't be wrong in that sense - they are used for what-ifs and to explore likely impacts of changes in the inputs, such as expected transmissibility, whether or not there are measures in place, etc. They're not supposed to be foolproof predictions (otherwise the scientists wouldn't piss about with viruses - they'd be cashing in on the lottery each week). They're the best guide we have and super important to trying to understand how things may develop, but still only a guide. |
Exactly | | | |
| ummm.... on 13:18 - Dec 18 with 1601 views | ZXBlue |
The Specatator link is disgraceful. Blatantly agenda driven.
This is a publication that employed Boris Johnson as editor... | | | |
| ummm.... on 13:18 - Dec 18 with 1598 views | eireblue |
| ummm.... on 12:57 - Dec 18 by Trequartista |
I cannot see how this will happen, given what is happening in 30% double-vaccinated South Africa.
I saw some graphs the other day showing sage had wildly overestimated their predictions on 6 consecutive occasions. (Spectator website i think).
I'll put my money where my mouth is and say that we reach 1000 deaths a day I will promise not to post another word on here about covid. |
This one?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-the-media-gets-wrong-about-sage-s-model |  | | |
| ummm.... on 13:20 - Dec 18 with 1581 views | Trequartista |
| ummm.... on 13:13 - Dec 18 by Swansea_Blue |
A lot's lost in the translation with this. E.g. the models may be suggesting a range of deaths according to different assumptions including, for example, a worst case scenario with no control measures. Newspapers jump on the worse case scenario as if it's a prediction. We then do something (lockdowns, maks, social distancing) and the actuals are lower than the upper most modelled ranges. Cue outrage at how the models are wrong and the scientists useless, especially from the selfish libertarian types such as those at the Spectator.
Models can't be wrong in that sense - they are used for what-ifs and to explore likely impacts of changes in the inputs, such as expected transmissibility, whether or not there are measures in place, etc. They're not supposed to be foolproof predictions (otherwise the scientists wouldn't piss about with viruses - they'd be cashing in on the lottery each week). They're the best guide we have and super important to trying to understand how things may develop, but still only a guide. |
Even when the models have a best case scenario and a worst case scenario, we have done better than the best case scenario.
The models are not so much wrong as irrelevant in that they make so many assumptions about unknowns that it defeats the object. Why would you assume nobody is going to wear mask?
So you end up with these type of doomsday figures going into headline news and sending everyone's anxiety levels off the scale (they certainly did mine the other day when Whitty says everything we know about Omicron is bad news). | |
| |
| ummm.... on 13:22 - Dec 18 with 1571 views | Trequartista |
| ummm.... on 13:18 - Dec 18 by ZXBlue |
The Specatator link is disgraceful. Blatantly agenda driven.
This is a publication that employed Boris Johnson as editor... |
Ok, that's an opinion, but which facts are wrong for you to label it disgraceful? [Post edited 18 Dec 2021 13:22]
| |
| |
| ummm.... on 13:23 - Dec 18 with 1568 views | bluelagos |
| ummm.... on 13:13 - Dec 18 by Swansea_Blue |
A lot's lost in the translation with this. E.g. the models may be suggesting a range of deaths according to different assumptions including, for example, a worst case scenario with no control measures. Newspapers jump on the worse case scenario as if it's a prediction. We then do something (lockdowns, maks, social distancing) and the actuals are lower than the upper most modelled ranges. Cue outrage at how the models are wrong and the scientists useless, especially from the selfish libertarian types such as those at the Spectator.
Models can't be wrong in that sense - they are used for what-ifs and to explore likely impacts of changes in the inputs, such as expected transmissibility, whether or not there are measures in place, etc. They're not supposed to be foolproof predictions (otherwise the scientists wouldn't piss about with viruses - they'd be cashing in on the lottery each week). They're the best guide we have and super important to trying to understand how things may develop, but still only a guide. |
Been banging this drum for what seems like years Swanners. Spot on.
Problem is lots of people can't cope with uncertainty, especially at the moment. And others can't cope with us making decisions based on imperfect knowledge.
The idea that we should avoid decisions because we don't have certainty is ridiculous. They are the best we have, pulled together by the best in the country using the best knowledge (inputs) we have.
Those who dis the models or the modellers tend to know sfa about them in my experience. But hey, such is Twtd. |  |
| |
| ummm.... on 13:25 - Dec 18 with 1551 views | bluelagos |
| ummm.... on 13:20 - Dec 18 by Trequartista |
Even when the models have a best case scenario and a worst case scenario, we have done better than the best case scenario.
The models are not so much wrong as irrelevant in that they make so many assumptions about unknowns that it defeats the object. Why would you assume nobody is going to wear mask?
So you end up with these type of doomsday figures going into headline news and sending everyone's anxiety levels off the scale (they certainly did mine the other day when Whitty says everything we know about Omicron is bad news). |
Do please share with us your experience of modelling diseases.
I asked you previously but you failed to respond to that particular point... | |
| |
| ummm.... on 13:27 - Dec 18 with 1222 views | Trequartista |
| ummm.... on 13:25 - Dec 18 by bluelagos |
Do please share with us your experience of modelling diseases.
I asked you previously but you failed to respond to that particular point... |
You are missing my point entirely. I'm not saying i have a better method, i'm saying there are too many unknowns to make any modelling accurate. | |
| |
| ummm.... on 13:27 - Dec 18 with 1214 views | eireblue |
| ummm.... on 13:20 - Dec 18 by Trequartista |
Even when the models have a best case scenario and a worst case scenario, we have done better than the best case scenario.
The models are not so much wrong as irrelevant in that they make so many assumptions about unknowns that it defeats the object. Why would you assume nobody is going to wear mask?
So you end up with these type of doomsday figures going into headline news and sending everyone's anxiety levels off the scale (they certainly did mine the other day when Whitty says everything we know about Omicron is bad news). |
If you had to decide on whether your actions would result in the difference between 1000’s and 10’s of deaths, seems reasonable to take all information available, and not simply go for a gut instinct, hope for the best and then get it wrong. | | | |
| ummm.... on 13:30 - Dec 18 with 1196 views | ZXBlue |
| ummm.... on 13:22 - Dec 18 by Trequartista |
Ok, that's an opinion, but which facts are wrong for you to label it disgraceful? [Post edited 18 Dec 2021 13:22]
|
The graphs are clearly designed, without context, to propagate an agenda. that is not honest journalism. | | | |
| ummm.... on 13:31 - Dec 18 with 1188 views | bluelagos |
| ummm.... on 13:27 - Dec 18 by Trequartista |
You are missing my point entirely. I'm not saying i have a better method, i'm saying there are too many unknowns to make any modelling accurate. |
Thanks for the clarity and I presume from answer you have no experience modelling diseases. None at all. Zilch. (Do correct if I am wrong)
Am happy to defer to those who have experience and who understand how to model unknowns, and how to present the uncertainty they create in their models. | |
| |
| ummm.... on 13:33 - Dec 18 with 1163 views | Trequartista |
| ummm.... on 13:30 - Dec 18 by ZXBlue |
The graphs are clearly designed, without context, to propagate an agenda. that is not honest journalism. |
Could you be more specific? For example, have they omitted the predictions where SAGE have been accurate? I'm interested in the truth rather than any political agenda so i'd genuinely like to know. | |
| |
| ummm.... on 13:35 - Dec 18 with 1144 views | ZXBlue |
| ummm.... on 13:33 - Dec 18 by Trequartista |
Could you be more specific? For example, have they omitted the predictions where SAGE have been accurate? I'm interested in the truth rather than any political agenda so i'd genuinely like to know. |
Where is the context? They are clearly pursuing the agenda that its all a fuss about nothing. Along with a moronic cadre of tory mps. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
