The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[Gone]

5 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Simply put - I agree with your first two points, but not your third. Modelling scenarios is their job. A scenario is not wrong or right - it's just a scenario. You can't use hindsight to say a model was wrong. It was right based on the data at the time (and whatever variables they applied to the specific scenario).

But if on reflection and reviewing the accuracy of the scenarios they are constantly wrong and constantly wrong by some bias, then you have to question the people putting them together. If my forecast accuracy at work as so outrageously wrong, especially using the data to make huge strategic decisions like the government have to make, then I would be out of a job by now. 

[Stive Pesley]

16 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

But if on reflection and reviewing the accuracy of the scenarios they are constantly wrong and constantly wrong by some bias, then you have to question the people putting them together.

But they aren't "wrong". You are misunderstanding how this works, based on being manipulated by a Spectator article!

1. The scenarios say - "Based on current data and if these variables remain unchanged then this is what will happen"

2. The government then make decisions to change the variables in order to AVOID the scenario

3. The changes have an impact and the scenario does not come to pass

4. Click bait media publish graphs that show how the reality therefore does not match the scenario and makes impressionable people lose trust in experts

rinse and repeat

 

 

 

[Ram-Alf]

2 hours ago, TexasRam said:

I don’t think they gain anything from it they are just not brave enough to do anything different. I think there are a few reasons reason why they introduce tighter restrictions, 1st as another poster mentioned is a complete distraction tactic from all the current accusations. 2nd is complete fear, the media have whipped many of the population into a Covid scared frenzy and if it does go pear shaped with this new variant (which all indications are it won’t even with current restrictions) then the government are scared to death of the repercussions so are going extra cautious. 3rd they are also listening and paying to much credence to their science advisors who so far have modelled it and got it sooooooo wrong every time to the point iirs absolute gross negligence (the link below has this data)

 

I remember in the 1st couple of weeks of the Sage broadcasts that Sir Patrick Vallance predicted Covid-19 will have an impact of a maximum 20,000 deaths, This was when we were at the very low end of the 1000s, This made my eyebrows raise, Now were at circa 150,000, Scientists aye...don't know Didly Squat!

[Gone]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

But they aren't "wrong". You are misunderstanding how this works, based on being manipulated by a Spectator article!

1. The scenarios say - "Based on current data and if these variables remain unchanged then this is what will happen"

2. The government then make decisions to change the variables in order to AVOID the scenario

3. The changes have an impact and the scenario does not come to pass

4. Click bait media publish graphs that show how the reality therefore does not match the scenario and makes impressionable people lose trust in experts

rinse and repeat

 

 

 

We’ll never know if the changes had impact or not. Do nothing and does it change anything? We’ll never know. What we do know is the doom monger predictions which are life’s are now controlled against and so so wrong. 

[Bob The Badger]

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

But they aren't "wrong". You are misunderstanding how this works, based on being manipulated by a Spectator article!

1. The scenarios say - "Based on current data and if these variables remain unchanged then this is what will happen"

2. The government then make decisions to change the variables in order to AVOID the scenario

3. The changes have an impact and the scenario does not come to pass

4. Click bait media publish graphs that show how the reality therefore does not match the scenario and makes impressionable people lose trust in experts

rinse and repeat

 

 

 

You're absolutely right. models are merely predictions based upon known data. They are mathematical calculations, not people guessing, and guessing badly, as @TexasRam seems to believe.

You don't stop modeling because you don't nail it every time anymore than you stop forecasting the weather when you get it horribly wrong.

I don't know this for a fact, but I'd be totally stunned if every model has been horribly wrong every time.

My *guess* is a good proportion will have been fairly accurate but who wants to point to a fairly accurate model from 6 months ago any more than than people want to talk about meteorologist getting it right. Where's the fun in that?

As an aside, I was just listening to the Nicky Campbell phone in whilst I was out with the hounds. They had a virology professor on who was saying that the booster jab gives more protection than actually catching Covid does. And that whereas it's not unique, it is very unusual. Normally, catching the virus you're immunising against provides the highest level of defence.

 

[Stive Pesley]

5 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

My *guess* is a good proportion will have been fairly accurate but who wants to point to a fairly accurate model from 6 months ago any more than than people want to talk about meteorologist getting it right. Where's the fun in that?

Exactly - if there were a site showing all the times they'd got it right, it would be boring AND a much bigger set of data than the Spectator nonsense

54 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

I remember in the 1st couple of weeks of the Sage broadcasts that Sir Patrick Vallance predicted Covid-19 will have an impact of a maximum 20,000 deaths, This was when we were at the very low end of the 1000s, This made my eyebrows raise, Now were at circa 150,000, Scientists aye...don't know Didly Squat!

Indeed - and note that one of the graphs the Spectator "data hub" tries to spin is about Vallance's scenario model from 21st Sept 2020: 

"Sir Patrick Vallance said that the UK could see 50,000 new coronavirus cases a day by mid-October without further action and that would be expected to lead to about "200-plus deaths per day" a month after that"

 

But clearly we took further action in terms of tiered lockdowns - which slowed the exponential growth and we didn't hit a rolling average of 50,000 cases a day until Jan 3rd 2021 - pretty much the peak, and the point at which we entered full lockdown

 

People getting mad with data modellers for being "wrong" is a joke. If they can't see it's the media spin which is manipulating them, what can we do?

 

 

 

[Wolfie]

1 hour ago, Unlucky Alf said:

I remember in the 1st couple of weeks of the Sage broadcasts that Sir Patrick Vallance predicted Covid-19 will have an impact of a maximum 20,000 deaths, This was when we were at the very low end of the 1000s, This made my eyebrows raise, Now were at circa 150,000, Scientists aye...don't know Didly Squat!

No. He said that 20,000 deaths would be a "good" outcome, so the best case scenario. It was never a realistic prediction.

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, Wolfie said:

No. He said that 20,000 deaths would be a "good" outcome, so the best case scenario. It was never a realistic prediction.

To be fair, he also said it before Hancock decided to send loads of sick people into care homes to keep hospital numbers down.

[Boycie]

Not one reported death from omicron in the world but we’ve found one.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Boycie

[Gone]

3 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:

You're absolutely right. models are merely predictions based upon known data. They are mathematical calculations, not people guessing, and guessing badly, as @TexasRam seems to believe.

You don't stop modeling because you don't nail it every time anymore than you stop forecasting the weather when you get it horribly wrong.

I don't know this for a fact, but I'd be totally stunned if every model has been horribly wrong every time.

My *guess* is a good proportion will have been fairly accurate but who wants to point to a fairly accurate model from 6 months ago any more than than people want to talk about meteorologist getting it right. Where's the fun in that?

As an aside, I was just listening to the Nicky Campbell phone in whilst I was out with the hounds. They had a virology professor on who was saying that the booster jab gives more protection than actually catching Covid does. And that whereas it's not unique, it is very unusual. Normally, catching the virus you're immunising against provides the highest level of defence.

 

@Bob The Badger and @Stive Pesley defence of the wayward modelling in picture form

[Ramarena]

3 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

Exactly - if there were a site showing all the times they'd got it right, it would be boring AND a much bigger set of data than the Spectator nonsense

Indeed - and note that one of the graphs the Spectator "data hub" tries to spin is about Vallance's scenario model from 21st Sept 2020: 

"Sir Patrick Vallance said that the UK could see 50,000 new coronavirus cases a day by mid-October without further action and that would be expected to lead to about "200-plus deaths per day" a month after that"

 

But clearly we took further action in terms of tiered lockdowns - which slowed the exponential growth and we didn't hit a rolling average of 50,000 cases a day until Jan 3rd 2021 - pretty much the peak, and the point at which we entered full lockdown

 

People getting mad with data modellers for being "wrong" is a joke. If they can't see it's the media spin which is manipulating them, what can we do?

 

 

 

Your finally question is basically, how do we stop confirmation bias. Not sure how you can deal with that.

Funny thing at the the moment is- watching people who’ve spent the last year or so slagging off scientists, doctors, experts and their data/modeling, now going full circle and hailing any that say the initial data points to Omnicrom being “mild”.

[Gone]

5 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

Your finally question is basically, how do we stop confirmation bias. Not sure how you can deal with that.

Funny thing at the the moment is- watching people who’ve spent the last year or so slagging off scientists, doctors, experts and their data/modeling, now going full circle and hailing any that say the initial data points to Omnicrom being “mild”.

I think you may find the scientists people have issues with are the ones advising the UK government. The ones quoting that the new variants symptoms are “mild” are advising other people eg the South African chief medical officer. 

[RoyMac5]

3 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

People getting mad with data modellers for being "wrong" is a joke. If they can't see it's the media spin which is manipulating them, what can we do?

So have they modelled a 'predicted outcome' based on Govt restrictions? So we can see how clever they really are? 

[Ramarena]

20 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I think you may find the scientists people have issues with are the ones advising the UK government. The ones quoting that the new variants symptoms are “mild” are advising other people eg the South African chief medical officer. 

Who they advise is irrelevant when it comes to the confirmation bias problem.

[BucksRam]

1 hour ago, Boycie said:

Not one reported death from omicron in the world but we’ve found one.

May be wrong but didn't the headline say one person has died WITH not OF Omicron?  Subtle difference.

[Gone]

1 minute ago, BucksRam said:

May be wrong but didn't the headline say one person has died WITH not OF Omicron?  Subtle difference.

 

[ketteringram]

I wonder when they'll start talking about the fourth jab.

[Boycie]

14 minutes ago, ketteringram said:

I wonder when they'll start talking about the fourth jab.

Give the pharma’s chance to at least get paid for this rush job first.

January will be a struggle, the top brass will be at their holiday homes in Panama entertaining guests from SW1A 

[GboroRam]

2 hours ago, TexasRam said:

I think you may find the scientists people have issues with are the ones advising the UK government. The ones quoting that the new variants symptoms are “mild” are advising other people eg the South African chief medical officer. 

So by that sense, do you agree with the scientists in virtually every country who have advised restrictions in their respective countries? Or have all countries made the mistake and we should have let it run everywhere worldwide? 

[Gone]

1 minute ago, GboroRam said:

So by that sense, do you agree with the scientists in virtually every country who have advised restrictions in their respective countries? Or have all countries made the mistake and we should have let it run everywhere worldwide? 

I disagree with any country and scientists that have pushed to impose strict restrictions on their people for Covid.