D
D
Deleted member 77198
Guest
I don’t think they ignored South Africa’s data out of flippancy mate, I’m just not sure you can use data that hasn’t got all end data required for getting results.Because it was Omicron so of course it’s doing the heavy lifting in the sentence. It’s the whole point of the fucking sentence. IT WAS OMICRON. IT WAS NOT DELTA. South Africa already had a month of data on how severe (or should we say mild) it was. SAGE ignored that and lobbied for a lockdown before Christmas.
There’s literally no point talking about ‘what if it was a more severe strain’ as it was and there was data around showing that. Did you not post on this thread in November and December?
We’ve seen how long it takes for initial infections to start to move around the age groups and then finally get to the most vulnerable groups before they end up hospitalised and then see recoveries; that’s all longer than a month. So the only data they could use was Delta data and then tell us “if Omicron is 100%/50%/2.5% as bad as Delta xxx may happen”.
Im also not sure one country’s data gives a reliable data set neither. There are many factors that would make one country’s data unreliable when modelling. They could have a fitter, less obese, fewer lung conditions, healthier, younger average age, lower elderly percentage population. There are no averages to take from multiple data sets to temper an unreliable set of figures.
It also never helped that our media runs with SAGE’s heavier severity models and often don’t mention or only passingly mention the ‘2.5% as bad’ models.