meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 6,434
They do and they do it all the time. Thet can't help themselves like the narcissists they are.
There are countless articles and interviews from Sage members lobbying for lockdowns throught out the pandemic.
here's just 3 but I can go on for ages with different Dr's and Professors of Sage on TV, radio, newspapers. All of them lobbying for lockdowns and restrictions or delaying reopenings. All of them basing it off their own worst case very unlikely scenario
Covid: Action needed to limit hospital admissions - Sage scientists
Scientists say admissions could reach 3,000 a day in England if more restrictions are not brought in soon.www.bbc.co.uk
More Covid rules could be needed in weeks to fight Omicron variant, SAGE warns
New Covid rules for England will be reviewed by December 20 - but the government's advisors warned: 'There may not be time to fully ascertain whether they are sufficient before decisions are needed on further action'www.mirror.co.uk
Sage calls for ‘policy work’ on reintroducing Covid measures - Research Professional News
New restrictions should come in sooner rather than later, suggests Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencieswww.researchprofessionalnews.com
That’s not three though, those are just examples of exactly what I said in terms of the media reporting it without understanding it and including a worst case scenario and then saying “sage advisors say”. Well, yea they do because the modelling will always include that. They also include everything else which they also say is more likely to happen, when they can say it with some confidence.
Their “highly likely” figure was a lot less than 3000 a day in that exact same report and also included the caveat that it depended how much take up there was to the booster rollout and to behavioural changes, which are already evident with the changes in hospitality and numbers going to pubs and restaurants, as well as the severity still not being fully known. Just got to hope the figures from SA are a full indicator for us too.
It’s predominantly bullshit media rhetoric thats based on the hope people either don’t read the underlying documentation or understand it so the lines can be blurred between the political agenda and the scientific one. It’s literally all there though if people really want to find out about it rather than the media interpretation of it. The differences will open a lot more minds into other agendas at play, I imagine.
That’s pretty well covered (or at least hinted at) in the thread I posted before though and why things like the spectator graph is meaningless and the actual models from previous waves don’t correlate at all with the rhetoric.
In the acceptable realms though, there’s also that they’ll want some of it to get out there as it reduces the likelihood of it happening straight away.
Last edited:
