benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,641 
Likes: 1,742
|
Post by benaj on Dec 18, 2021 20:17:47 GMT
😵💫
I’ve just found out someone (unvaccinated due to health condition) had covid 3 weeks ago by overhearing convo. IIRC, the same person told me it was a fever because tested -ve on the LFT. It's not easy to hear when someone pretended it wasn't covid.
Meanwhile, someone else who’s already double vaxxed posted the covid experience. Tested +ve first day when tricky throat symptom started.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 19, 2021 2:42:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 19, 2021 8:19:16 GMT
Maybe we could follow the Dutch example and have a strict Christmas lockdown, with only 4 adult visitors allowed in your house on 24th, 25th or 26th December.
you'd struggle to find 2 adults in this household 
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 19, 2021 8:21:52 GMT
I hope we could learn more from the experts in South Africa if they could provide more “data”. Is it really possible they have absolute 0 Omicron deaths in SA?
South Africa's health ministry said it was unable to say with certainty if any of its COVID-19 deaths were caused by Omicron as deaths were not broken down by variant.
which is why the 'noise' from SA that O is less virulent can't be treated as anything other than anecdotal at this stage. Even more so given quite different demographics (younger population, much higher levels of prior infection, lower levels of vaccination etc etc.)
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 19, 2021 8:36:40 GMT
Well I've read it, and I'm not quite so alarmed (though still a bit concerned as just the appearance might leave SAGE open). For starter's - and most relevant to that particular twitter discussion - the evidence for O being less virulent is at this stage extremely 'light'*. Assuming that, what is the point of presenting for policy purposes models which assume something which you know simply leads to better outcomes but for which there is no clear data as to at what level you should tweak that input parameter ? What if it has 0 serious disease effects ? Then your baseline is '0' new deaths - that is a 'known' possible baseline without modelling. OK, i've taken an extreme to demonstrate the point. So what would a reasonable assumption on the virulence for O compared with D be ? I suspect they simply don't know. What I do find slightly concerning is if the report - which I've not looked at - completely discounts / doesn't mention that the figures are highly sensitive to how nasty O actually is. Doubly so if they've been specifically instructed to NOT include any such statements as that would smell as if the political body are setting SAGE up as the fall guys when outcomes are nowhere near as bad as that predicted within the straitjacket they may have been put in. [The likeliehood that its impact on a largely double jabbed and partly boosted population might result in better outcomes than in earlier waves is however a much stronger one, but not the same thing as how inherently virulent it is].
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,041
Likes: 5,156
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 19, 2021 8:42:42 GMT
No, the "non-science" is the journalist wanting the figures to be bent to suit his political preferences, and having a hissy-fit when the scientist says "there's no evidence to do so". Scientist: "We know this is more virulent, there is no evidence to say it is less serious. We have modelled the virulence, and assumed the seriousness remains the same."
Journalist: "Why didn't you model for less serious, so we can justify removing restrictions?"
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,054
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 19, 2021 11:41:52 GMT
And what's the point of modelling if it doesn't say how likely any these scenarios are?
Sound like a very reasonable question to ask. Shame he didn't appear to get an answer
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 19, 2021 11:54:46 GMT
Fair points above, but as JPMorgan argues, there is some evidence emerging in SA that it's less virulent. Surely that scenario, too, ought to have been presented by SAGE as entirely plausible? They used to present a range of outcomes, yet at face value it would seem here that they are no longer doing so. I don't think we should target the journalist questioning matters.
When another expert professor questions SAGE's ethics, I find it troubling.
Prof. Robert Dingwall, until recently a JCVI expert, has said that Medley’s candour reveals “a fundamental problem of scientific ethics in Sage” - ie, a hardwired negativity bias. “The unquestioning response to the brief is very like that of SPI-B's behavioural scientists,” he says and suggests that the Covid inquiry looks into all this.
We've just got to hope that those acting on the advice received do assess it critically and realise it is the worst-case scenario being presented, and that other scenarios are just as plausible. I wish I had confidence in the current crew to do that.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,716
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 19, 2021 15:08:09 GMT
I can't resist....
One observation I have is that stance on Covid restrictions seems to follow along the old left/right spectrum. Those in the centre/liberal tend to favour more restriction and those towards the right and far left seem to want less of it. I don't know why that is but it is definitely not helpful as it encourages people to follow old/tribal party lines rather than focus on the facts. I suspect some of that politics permeate the scientific and medical communities.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiseclerk on Dec 19, 2021 15:39:31 GMT
I would assume because the far right and the far left distrust authorities (not limited to government, but also science) and therefore suspect conspiracies and lies told (and in extension to that expect that journalists are part of this conspiracy).
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,041
Likes: 5,156
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 19, 2021 16:08:06 GMT
I can't resist.... One observation I have is that stance on Covid restrictions seems to follow along the old left/right spectrum. Those in the centre/liberal tend to favour more restriction and those towards the right and far left seem to want less of it. I don't know why that is but it is definitely not helpful as it encourages people to follow old/tribal party lines rather than focus on the facts. I suspect some of that politics permeate the scientific and medical communities. The right don't like government, and think people should be allowed to be entitled wombles if they wish. The centre and left think keeping people healthy and alive is a substantial part of government's job, and that stopping people from being entitled wombles is a part of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Dec 19, 2021 16:18:21 GMT
I can't resist.... One observation I have is that stance on Covid restrictions seems to follow along the old left/right spectrum. Those in the centre/liberal tend to favour more restriction and those towards the right and far left seem to want less of it. I don't know why that is but it is definitely not helpful as it encourages people to follow old/tribal party lines rather than focus on the facts. I suspect some of that politics permeate the scientific and medical communities. The right don't like government, and think people should be allowed to be entitled wombles if they wish. The centre and left think keeping people healthy and alive is a substantial part of government's job, and that stopping people from being entitled wombles is a part of that. Were the Wombles not eco warriors before it got trendy?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 19, 2021 16:30:55 GMT
Fair points above, but as JPMorgan argues, there is some evidence emerging in SA that it's less virulent. Surely that scenario, too, ought to have been presented by SAGE as entirely plausible? They used to present a range of outcomes, yet at face value it would seem here that they are no longer doing so. I don't think we should target the journalist questioning matters. When another expert professor questions SAGE's ethics, I find it troubling.
Prof. Robert Dingwall, until recently a JCVI expert, has said that Medley’s candour reveals “a fundamental problem of scientific ethics in Sage” - ie, a hardwired negativity bias. “The unquestioning response to the brief is very like that of SPI-B's behavioural scientists,” he says and suggests that the Covid inquiry looks into all this.
We've just got to hope that those acting on the advice received do assess it critically and realise it is the worst-case scenario being presented, and that other scenarios are just as plausible. I wish I had confidence in the current crew to do that. agreed - when I read it that bit did concern me. But I can't help but think if the people involved thought there was significant/reliable data to indicate lower disease severity that they would have said something more about that. What we are being told so far is that any such evidence is not much more than anecdotal. If so, then putting forward a scenario that assumes say 50% of the virulence is nothing more than conjecture. Personally even then I'd prefer something like that to be in there, but with the caveat that it is pure conjecture due to lack of data. That would help to avoid the politicans simply pointing fingers later neglecting to mention that they were given what they asked for. Who knows. On the last point, Javid is on record this morning as stating that minister are 'challenging' the SAGE (/advisers) inputs. Presumably with all the authority dnd insight that a degree in the Classics or PPE gives them
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 19, 2021 16:38:03 GMT
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,041
Likes: 5,156
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 20, 2021 8:11:38 GMT
But I can't help but think if the people involved thought there was significant/reliable data to indicate lower disease severity that they would have said something more about that. What we are being told so far is that any such evidence is not much more than anecdotal. If so, then putting forward a scenario that assumes say 50% of the virulence is nothing more than conjecture. Let's go back a step. What is the point of them producing these scenarios? Is it to model likely realities, with that modelling feeding into decision making? Or is it to produce bent figures which can then be used to justify preconceptions and decisions which have already been made? Never mind the politicians, think about the press...
|
|
