Coronavirus (2021) thread

[meltonblue]

As you choose to believe what you believe because it suits you. So who's right and who's wrong?

Well given Medley clarified it afterwards and previous sage minutes can be seen proving his point, Nelsons interpretation of it is quite clearly wrong.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

That is the same thing, expressed in a different way.

He's not even answering the question which is worse

 

[Gabriel]

Just tested positive. Gutted. Xmas cancelled.

Sorry to hear that. Hope you recover soon.

 

[SWP's back]

Just tested positive. Gutted. Xmas cancelled.

But at least you’ll be with your wife mate. There’s that.

 

[SWP's back]

Yep. Zero point in modelling a scenario where everyone is skipping around and plaiting daisy chains into each others hair. You model varying worst case scenarios, see how reality matches against them and keep one step ahead with appropriate measures to stem or head off the worst case materialising.

I get that everyone is twitchy, but selling the public fantasy scenarios to make everyone feel better isn’t going to help in the long run.

Oh for fucks sake, quit it with the hyperbole and strawmen.

They model worst and best case scenarios and everything in between. So far, their “best case” scenarios are averaging at being between 80-100% more than what then happens in the real world.

Because of that they lose credibility and people start ignoring their data.

There’s no point modelling a best case scenario that always turns out twice as bad as reality. That’s not what a best scenario is meant to do.

 

[blueinsa]

Yep. Zero point in modelling a scenario where everyone is skipping around and plaiting daisy chains into each others hair. You model varying worst case scenarios, see how reality matches against them and keep one step ahead with appropriate measures to stem or head off the worst case materialising.

I get that everyone is twitchy, but selling the public fantasy scenarios to make everyone feel better isn’t going to help in the long run.

We should meet somewhere in the middle then with the modelling.

The truth is what people want.

 

[twosips]

But at least you’ll be with your wife mate. There’s that.

Yeah. First Xmas in our new home though. Couldn't wait to have family over. Sulking big time.

 

[mosssideblue]

The problem is if you keep hammering home to people that if you do X,Y,Z then we can live a normal life but then you start lockdowns again even the most pro policy people will lose heart and faith.

We haven't got a choice but to respect it they're not letting us in, not that France or Germany are on my to visit lists anyway

Towards normality was what I believed was said, not a definite "normal life", which, imo I think will be different moving on.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

It's bollocks.

As ever though, you chose to believe it because it suits you.

It’s sort of true and sort of not. The politicians ask the modellers to ’model a crisis‘ with worst and best case outcomes. Frequently the inputs and assumptions are wrong or not appropriate but the models are not there for that, they’re there to outline crisis scenarios and suffer from having nobody capable of interpreting them either in government or in the media.

City will have a plan somewhere, which models missing out on top 4 and another one on missing out on European football.
They might even have one that says what happens if they’re bottom of the League in January which is ’get Allardyce’. The headlines would then say City after Big Sam, city could lose X million, city could lose players X, Y and Z. City’s board then read that scenario and get Sam A appointed at the start of the season!

The biggest problem the modellers have got, and I’m surprised they’ve not worked it out yet, being undoubtedly clever people, is that they’re only there so Johnson and his cronies can throw them under the bus, the train, the lorries and off a cliff, by claiming he was only ever ‘following the science’.

 

[BobKowalski]

We should meet somewhere in the middle then with the modelling.

The truth is what people want.

How can you model ‘truth’ based on an unknown virus with unknown effects? Modelling by definition is based on assumptions. You can do several models based on varying assumptions and then track how each model matches the virus in real time.

 

[Octavian]

But at least you’ll be with your wife mate. There’s that.

Don’t make him depressed

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Well given Medley clarified it afterwards and previous sage minutes can be seen proving his point, Nelsons interpretation of it is quite clearly wrong.

His previous sage meetings was dated prior to Nov 17th before omicron was around

 

[Bluewonder]

They should model the most likely scenario, using assumptions informed by data from other countries.

This should be the only way modelling is used to drive policy.

Fairy tale scenarios where nobody dies and apocalyptic scenarios where everyone dies are useful to nobody other than tabloid press.

 

[Cheesy]

As you choose to believe what you believe because it suits you. So who's right and who's wrong?

Erm... I am.

Seeing as Medley has come out and said that it just isn't the case.

 

[Bazzmand Show]

Delta will still be circulating at the moment but I imagine will be replaced by omicron as the dominant strain. There is the possibility you could catch both at the same time. Get vaccinated.

Is this true?

I've literally just had it, this week no idea if it was Omnicron or Delta.

I wouldn't want to get over this and then catch Omnicron, I can't get a booster for a month now....

 

[SWP's back]

How can you model ‘truth’ based on an unknown virus with unknown effects? Modelling by definition is based on assumptions. You can do several models based on varying assumptions and then track how each model matches the virus in real time.

And should the ‘real world’ ever beat ‘best case’ when modelling a range of outcomes?

 

[BobKowalski]

Oh for fucks sake, quit it with the hyperbole and strawmen.

They model worst and best case scenarios and everything in between. So far, their “best case” scenarios are averaging at being between 80-100% more than what then happens in the real world.

Because of that they lose credibility and people start ignoring their data.

There’s no point modelling a best case scenario that always turns out twice as bad as reality. That’s not what a best scenario is meant to do.

So by ‘best case’ you mean they model varying worst case scenarios? I don’t have a problem with that. Most disaster planning or modelling tends to err on the side of, well, disaster.

 

[meltonblue]

His previous sage meetings was dated prior to Nov 17th before omicron was around

Struggling with what that’s got to do with the discussion? The point is it shows what sage model and what they don’t, which is different to what Nelson interpreted.

 

[twosips]

Don’t make him depressed

Ha

 

[SWP's back]

So by ‘best case’ you mean they model varying worst case scenarios? I don’t have a problem with that. Most disaster planning or modelling tends to err on the side of, well, disaster.

No they have their models which show a range of outcomes for a given policy decision.

But their low end “best case” was nearly twice as bad as what ended up happening.