Page 289 of 357 FirstFirst ... 189239279287288289290291299339 ... LastLast
Results 2,881 to 2,890 of 3570

Thread: Coronavirus

  1. #2881
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by Mossdog View Post
    But there's no question over their lack of advisory effectiveness, as judged by their own figures/predictions.

    Under their advice we've gone from a national lockdown in March, to 'you can all go out to play again', to 'ooophs we need another national lockdown'. Did they not see that coming?

    Yo-yo advice does undermine confidence in their ability somewhat.

    No one is saying CV-19 management isn't anything but hugely complex, but they've appeared to eschew any responsibility for offering conflicting messages/advice, or simply making the wrong 'call', but have placed the blame for the course of events, as they describe them, squarely on the general public - us!
    I think you're being rather unfair on Vallance and Whitty at the same time as being incredibly lenient on Johnson and his ministers and political advisers. SAGE has provided scientific advice; the Government has made the decisions and has been responsible for communication with the public.

    Did either Vallance or Whitty, or any member of SAGE, provide advice that the public could 'all go out to play again'? I very much doubt it. I don't believe that the Eat Out To Help Out scheme was suggested by SAGE. In fact, there are reasons to believe that SAGE actively discouraged it. It was a political decision. Was the advertising campaign saying to people 'let's get back to normal' a result of SAGE advice? I very much doubt it. It was a political decision. Was Boris Johnson just repeating what he'd been told by SAGE when he talked about a “more significant return to normality” by Christmas? I very much doubt it. It was a political decision.

    As for 'ooophs we need another national lockdown' - I don't believe that SAGE ever said, or suggested, or even hinted, that the national lockdown in March would be the end of the matter. It was Boris Johnson who said we can “turn the tide of this disease” within 12 weeks. I don't believe Johnson was acting on the advice of SAGE when he said that. (Similarly when he said that he was still shaking hands with people who had Covid-19. In fact, there are reasons to believe that Johnson was going against SAGE advice.)

    You say that Vallance and Whitty "have placed the blame for the course of events [...] squarely on the general public". But they haven't. It's been Johnson and other ministers who have done that. When Johnson said in parliament on September 22nd that "The problem we have in the spread of this virus is that, alas, a minority of people have not been following the guidance in the way they might have done." and "There is nothing more frustrating for the vast majority who do comply — the law-abiding majority — than the sight of a few brazenly defying the rules," was he acting on advice from SAGE? I very much doubt it. It was a political decision to say those things. (An inept one, in my opinion, but that's beside the point.)

    I don't believe SAGE has provided 'yo-yo' advice. The Government, however, has certainly been responsible for 'yo-yo', and unclear, and contradictory, messages to the public.

    It seems to me that the worst the SAGE members can be accused of is political naivety. But, since they're not politicians, that seems to me to be a forgivable mistake by them.

    You say that "No one is saying CV-19 management isn't anything but hugely complex" but, actually, I think some people are. In fact, some people seem to be saying that not only is it not hugely complex but that it's actually very simple. (To be clear, I am not talking about you, Mossdog, here.)

  2. #2882
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem View Post
    I think you're being rather unfair on Vallance and Whitty at the same time as being incredibly lenient on Johnson and his ministers and political advisers. SAGE has provided scientific advice; the Government has made the decisions and has been responsible for communication with the public.

    Did either Vallance or Whitty, or any member of SAGE, provide advice that the public could 'all go out to play again'? I very much doubt it. I don't believe that the Eat Out To Help Out scheme was suggested by SAGE. In fact, there are reasons to believe that SAGE actively discouraged it. It was a political decision. Was the advertising campaign saying to people 'let's get back to normal' a result of SAGE advice? I very much doubt it. It was a political decision. Was Boris Johnson just repeating what he'd been told by SAGE when he talked about a “more significant return to normality” by Christmas? I very much doubt it. It was a political decision.

    As for 'ooophs we need another national lockdown' - I don't believe that SAGE ever said, or suggested, or even hinted, that the national lockdown in March would be the end of the matter. It was Boris Johnson who said we can “turn the tide of this disease” within 12 weeks. I don't believe Johnson was acting on the advice of SAGE when he said that. (Similarly when he said that he was still shaking hands with people who had Covid-19. In fact, there are reasons to believe that Johnson was going against SAGE advice.)

    You say that Vallance and Whitty "have placed the blame for the course of events [...] squarely on the general public". But they haven't. It's been Johnson and other ministers who have done that. When Johnson said in parliament on September 22nd that "The problem we have in the spread of this virus is that, alas, a minority of people have not been following the guidance in the way they might have done." and "There is nothing more frustrating for the vast majority who do comply — the law-abiding majority — than the sight of a few brazenly defying the rules," was he acting on advice from SAGE? I very much doubt it. It was a political decision to say those things. (An inept one, in my opinion, but that's beside the point.)

    I don't believe SAGE has provided 'yo-yo' advice. The Government, however, has certainly been responsible for 'yo-yo', and unclear, and contradictory, messages to the public.

    It seems to me that the worst the SAGE members can be accused of is political naivety. But, since they're not politicians, that seems to me to be a forgivable mistake by them.

    You say that "No one is saying CV-19 management isn't anything but hugely complex" but, actually, I think some people are. In fact, some people seem to be saying that not only is it not hugely complex but that it's actually very simple. (To be clear, I am not talking about you, Mossdog, here.)
    I broadly agree.

    Being a simple soul I think every utterance and decision and thought and word spoken by a politician is political - they cannot think and behave in any other way, it is in their DNA, it is their existence. Go ask a fish what it feels like to fly high in the sky.

    And if were an expert "advising" in a political world I would make sure I was never identified with making any "decision" because if I am right I will not get any credit (strictly reserved for my political masters) and when things go wrong - as to some degree they must - I will find myself in the tumbril en route to Madame Guillotine: although the politicians will still try to pass the blame because they always, always do and once my head has been lopped off, my protests will have been silenced.
    "...as dry as the Atacama desert".

  3. #2883
    Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ambleside
    Posts
    5,473
    From the React-1 study:

    The number of people infected has more than doubled since the last round, with one in every 78 people now testing positive.
    The hardest hit area is Yorkshire and the Humber, where one every 37 people has the virus, followed by the North West region.
    Three times as many people aged 55-64 are infected and twice as many over 65s.
    The pace of the epidemic has accelerated with the R number - the number of people each infected person passes the virus on to on average - increasing from 1.15 to 1.56.
    Overall, the number of people infected is doubling every nine days.
    The South East, South West, east of England and London all have an R above 2.0. London has an estimated R of 2.86.
    Cases are spiking in young people in the South West in a repeat of the pattern seen in northern England just over a month ago.
    96,000 people are now catching the virus every day.

    Gulp .....

  4. #2884
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike T View Post
    From the React-1 study:


    ....96,000 people are now catching the virus every day.

    Gulp .....
    It looks like Vallance and Whitty’s projected figures were far too over optimistic then :roll eyes:

  5. #2885
    Master Witton Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    8,793
    It surprises me how many people are prepared to lap this up.

    Come on guys - I'm a Tory voter on here questioning the executive I supported - yet the opponents are only intent on critiquing my input.
    It's puzzling.

    Mike T - you use "infected" and "has the virus" "catching the virus" which are questionable at the very least. But you don't question them at all.
    React 1 - a scheme dreamt up to assist Imperial in backing up their previously made claims.
    Policy direction was set by Imperial, endorsed by the 7 or so mathematicians on SAGE and re-enforced continually by Imperial.
    They are marking their own work.

    These are home test kits sent out to volunteers. The evidence gleaned from these home testing swabs would not stand up in court.
    (Did you note the Boots one at £120 was paraded as being so precise, at just over 97% accurate)

    There is so little clear evidence to go off out there it is impossible to glean anything from it other than the number of deaths of people with Covid is on the rise again.

    Even that figure has question marks over it.

    As for the R number, if the level of R in the community is as they have set out since the early stages of the pandemic (4, moving to 2 around lockdown then down to 0.7 and now back up to 1.5 with a re-infection time of 5 days) then around 140 million infections would have taken place by now.
    Last edited by Witton Park; 29-10-2020 at 09:05 AM.
    Richard Taylor
    "William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
    Sid Waddell

  6. #2886
    Sweden has done something magical in the last couple of weeks in order to buck the European death trend. What was it, anyone know?
    https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/...&values=deaths

  7. #2887
    Master Muddy Retriever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Muddy puddle at Temple Newsam
    Posts
    2,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem View Post

    Was he right about the number of cases? Well, the first point to note that he absolutely did not 'predict' that there would be 50000 cases by the middle of November. He was very clear that it was not a prediction. He was using the number 50000 as an example of what could happen.
    You say that Vallance did not predict that there would be 50,000 cases, that it was just an example of what could happen. Well why was that the only scenario presented then? I think he knew that the 50,000 would become the headline so that people would interpret that as a prediction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flem View Post
    Was he justified in using the number 50000? Well, the next point to note is that, since we're not testing the whole population, the number of cases will include people who had symptoms but didn't get tested, as well as people who were asymptomatic. So, how many cases were there in mid-October? I don't know, but it seems to me that the best estimate is unlikely to be a million miles from 50000. However, the number of positive test results was significantly below 50000.
    But that wasn't the point Vallance was making at all. He produced a graph showing the actual reported cases on the 15th September, which was 3,105. It then doubles every seven days so that by 13th October, it would be 49,000. So that's actual reported cases of people that have actually been tested and found to be positive.Vallance graph.JPG

    Actual reported cases were 17,234, little over a third of his (not a) prediction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flem View Post
    But the third point to note is that additional measures aimed at limiting the growth of cases were introduced after he spoke. He was referring to the scenario in which further action was not taken.
    Well what were these extra measures then between 21st September and 13th October? The only significant change I recall was the 10pm curfew. Indeed I said at the time "To be fair, the new measures when they came were much less stringent than expected and I doubt they will have that much of an effect one way or the other". The 10pm curfew was apparently not recommended by Sage at the time and they have since said it would have marginal effect. Actually many people think it has made the situation worse, since large numbers of people are leaving at the same time, using public transport and going to takeaways/off licences etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flem View Post
    So the question, then, is whether or not his use of the words "something like 50,000 cases" if the growth continued 'unabated' warranted his being accused of scaremongering, and deliberately exaggerating the need for urgent action, and wilfully - I like that 'wilfully', it's so hyperbolic - misrepresenting the facts, and grossly over-estimating case numbers, and using numbers that were 'implausible', and indulging in 'project fear', and committing a "sackable offence"? Clearly, those accusations were not warranted.
    Yesterday, you quoted me saying that Vallance was wilfully misrepresenting the facts but you omitted to include the bit where I explained why. He said that cases were doubling every seven days. They weren’t doubling, it was not true. This could be seen from the figures that the Government publishes on its website. If I’m wrong I’m happy for you to show me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flem View Post
    And, of course, the exact number of cases is far less important than the number of deaths. Vallance used the example of 200 deaths per days by mid-November and we have actually seen 200 deaths per day 2 to 3 weeks before the middle of November, and the number of deaths per day is still increasing. So, not only were those accusations not warranted, they were actually just plain silly.
    Yes I agree that deaths are more important than cases but I never mentioned them back then. It is Vallance who said that 50,000 cases would lead to 200+ deaths. So he was spectacularly wrong for one estimate in one direction and then spectacularly wrong on another estimate but in the other direction, getting close to the actual deaths figure by accident.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flem View Post
    The question here isn't whether or not the measures the Government have introduced are justified or sensible. The question is whether or not Vallance and Whitty acted with a lack of integrity, scientific or otherwise. The answer is that they didn't.
    But this doesn't make them always right. Back in March Vallance was initially not in favour of lockdown. On 12th March he said:

    “It’s important to recognise it’s not to stop everyone getting [Covid-19]. You can’t do that. It’s not possible to stop everyone getting it, and it’s also not desirable because you want some immunity in the population. We need to have immunity to protect ourselves in the future.”

    He thought that lockdowns would only suppress the virus for a while and then would come back in a second wave. As indeed it has.

    He is now in favour of a circuit breaker lockdown. So was he right then or is he right now?

  8. #2888
    Master Witton Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Blackburn
    Posts
    8,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever View Post

    “It’s important to recognise it’s not to stop everyone getting [Covid-19]. You can’t do that. It’s not possible to stop everyone getting it, and it’s also not desirable because you want some immunity in the population. We need to have immunity to protect ourselves in the future.”

    He thought that lockdowns would only suppress the virus for a while and then would come back in a second wave. As indeed it has.
    Mike Yeadon has expressed frustration at what Vallance is now coming out with. He says that Vallance knows the policy he is backing is flawed, and Vallance's own words seem to validate that point.
    Richard Taylor
    "William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
    Sid Waddell

  9. #2889
    Master Muddy Retriever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Muddy puddle at Temple Newsam
    Posts
    2,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike T View Post
    96,000 people are now catching the virus every day.

    Gulp .....
    The seven day average of reported cases is 21,864 so if the 96,000 of people catching it is true then there must be a heck of a lot of asymptomatic people out there. More than 75% of people don't even realise they have the virus. Wouldn't that be good news?

    So if the current death figures are based on actual infections a few weeks ago that were more than four times the number of reported cases, the infection fatality rate is probably smaller than we thought. Again, good news, no?

  10. #2890
    Master Muddy Retriever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Muddy puddle at Temple Newsam
    Posts
    2,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Fellbeast View Post
    It looks like Vallance and Whitty’s projected figures were far too over optimistic then :roll eyes:
    Using their projections, wouldn't reported cases be 200,000 by now and of course actual infections much higher?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •