agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,053 
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 20, 2021 16:20:30 GMT
Historically the darkest blue bit has been for >800 infections per 100,000. Slightly worrying that from tomorrow there will be a new (I assume darker) classification for >1,600. Sign of things to come?
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 20, 2021 16:36:07 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? Ah, but are they likely realities, as you say? Reportedly, they don't appear to attach any probabilities (although I can't quite believe that - it would defy all science ethics to ignore probability). The great unwashed don't take your charitable view, though. Since hitting the Telegraph today, the comments section has been seething with anger. I can't remember when I last saw so many vitriolic comments there, with so many hundreds of upticks. As for producing bent figures to support decisions already made.... well, quite. People are not happy with the SAGE advice now and are starting to challenge what they perceive as the bent figures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2021 16:40:28 GMT
Moonraker, I'm not sure why you have to respect the unvaccinated. I don't. I could go on but only in Anglo-Saxon.
If they had done something positive for all of us we wouldn't be in this mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 20, 2021 16:43:21 GMT
Historically the darkest blue bit has been for >800 infections per 100,000. Slightly worrying that from tomorrow there will be a new (I assume darker) classification for >1,600. Sign of things to come?
Brixton: 2460 Clapham: 2472 Dalston: 2119 Where I am: 900 and a bit Just down the road in Ascot: 1140
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,625
Likes: 6,438
|
Post by registerme on Dec 20, 2021 16:47:27 GMT
Just one of my very occasional contributions to this forum: one might conjecture that the unvaccinated are responsible for some of the current and possibly pending restrictions/precautions because they are among the most vulnerable and need to be protected. I'm not completely convinced by that. Of my circle who've been hit by COVID since the beginning of November:- 10 adults (excluding five children below the age of 13) 2 in November, 8 in December All are in their mid-40's to early 50s. 1 was double jabbed and boosted 1 was double jabbed and had definitely been infected back in the first wave 8 were double jabbed Of the ten adults one was asymptomatic, the remaining nine had symptoms that ranged from "nasty cold" to "in bed for a week and a half". Those ten adults were infected via what was probably five different routes, only two of which are "known". The break down being roughly 4 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 1 (it's just possible that I caught it when I delivered some food to two friends who were isolating with it, in which case it would be 5 / 2 / 2 / 1). Of the two "known" routes one works in a school. The other is a member of a choir that met for practice a couple of weeks ago. Everybody took a LFT before attending... Of course it was the asymptomatic one who decided that because he had tested negative (even though his wife was in bed with it, she's the one who caught it at school) he was fit to go out for a pint with a friend, thereby infecting at least two more people. Idiot. But not so idiotic that you can't imagine behaviour like that being replicated hundreds of thousands of times around the country. Now drop that vaccinated status / infection route picture across a population of sixty years olds, or seventy year olds, or eighty year olds... I suspect a number would end up in hospital  . This thing is a bastard.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,715
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 20, 2021 16:53:29 GMT
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? Ah, but are they likely realities, as you say? Reportedly, they don't appear to attach any probabilities (although I can't quite believe that - it would defy all science ethics to ignore probability). The great unwashed don't take your charitable view, though. Since hitting the Telegraph today, the comments section has been seething with anger. I can't remember when I last saw so many vitriolic comments there, with so many hundreds of upticks. As for producing bent figures to support decisions already made.... well, quite. People are not happy with the SAGE advice now and are starting to challenge what they perceive as the bent figures. Yes I think to start with (i.e. 18 months ago) there was a general feeling that scientists were broadly neutral and out to seek the truth only. People conflate proven science with the scientists who are all working on different aspects of the pandemic and who have their own bias which they seek to prove. Some of that bias comes from alignment with their political view, some may simply have a gut feeling that are right about something then seek to prove it. Or perhaps that simply want to influence more directly people's behaviour (lockdowns etc) and thus produce research that creates a requirement for it. Really, the only science we should trust is that which has total or close to total unanimous peer review agreement. Having one committee such as sage (albeit with a few sub-committees) strikes me as at high risk of producing poor quality assessment as been shown many times.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,040
Likes: 5,156
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 20, 2021 17:09:33 GMT
The great unwashed don't take your charitable view, though. Since hitting the Telegraph today, the comments section has been seething with anger. Not entirely convinced that the Telegraph comments are the most representative, balanced, and neutral source around... People are not happy with the SAGE advice now and are starting to challenge what they perceive as the bent figures. Yes I think to start with (i.e. 18 months ago) there was a general feeling that scientists were broadly neutral and out to seek the truth only. People conflate proven science with the scientists who are all working on different aspects of the pandemic and who have their own bias which they seek to prove. Some of that bias comes from alignment with their political view, some may simply have a gut feeling that are right about something then seek to prove it. Or perhaps that simply want to influence more directly people's behaviour (lockdowns etc) and thus produce research that creates a requirement for it. Really, the only science we should trust is that which has total or close to total unanimous peer review agreement. Having one committee such as sage (albeit with a few sub-committees) strikes me as at high risk of producing poor quality assessment as been shown many times. No, I think it's far simpler than that. The expert consensus is simply overwhelming, as with climate change etc etc. It's all part of the move to "post-truth". Some people simply deny all facts that are inconvenient to their preconceptions, regardless of the authority behind them. As with climate change, etc etc.
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Dec 20, 2021 17:15:41 GMT
The members of the SAGE emergency groups are the leading experts in government and in Science in the respective fields of emergency.
For the latter what makes them scientific leaders is that their research and opinions are usually considered solid and widely accepted amongst the relevant experts.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 20, 2021 17:20:41 GMT
65% of Tennis Players 25% of UK soccer players are not planning to get vaccinated. Apparently the sudden spike in Heart issues is behind it think Christian Eriksen, Sergio Aguero, Charlie Wyke, Victor Lindelöf ( apologies for any misspellings )The latter point I had not linked with reluctance of players to get jabbed. Though 2 3 4 questions immediately come to mind: is it really a 'sudden spike' or just a perception of ? Are they known to have been previously vaccinated ? Is there any evidence of any link ? Doesn't this reluctance predate the likes of Aquero, Eriksen ? Anyway, prior to your post which has slightly punctured my feeling of self righteous indignation at the indulgence and entitlement of these over paid prima donnas (at least the ones that haven't been laid low by dodgy tickers, I'm not that cruel), I had been thinking the following: Why on earth doesn't the EFL - or at the very least the premier league element of it - refuse to pay salary to any player who doesn't get vaccinated (unless they have good medical grounds). Players only get paid their 'salaries' as a result of the obscene money raised by television rights, supporters in stadiums, qualification/success in tournaments, sponsorship revenues etc. All of which are fundamentally at risk if games can't go ahead because COVID has ripped through the squad and/or their supporting back room teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 20, 2021 17:28:45 GMT
The great unwashed don't take your charitable view, though. Since hitting the Telegraph today, the comments section has been seething with anger. Not entirely convinced that the Telegraph comments are the most representative, balanced, and neutral source around... But you might expect them typically to be amongst the closest supporters of the SAGE and government line, no? Where should I look for comments in support of SAGE's latest?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,040
Likes: 5,156
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 20, 2021 17:32:58 GMT
Not entirely convinced that the Telegraph comments are the most representative, balanced, and neutral source around... But you might expect them typically to be amongst the closest supporters of the SAGE and government line, no? Umm, have you followed any news in the last week or so? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-5965985199 Tory MPs - almost exclusively at the ERGier end of the spectrum - rebelled against the gov't and voted against some of the proposed measures because they don't think there's any need at all for them... The further-right end of the party are in denial about the 'vid, and want us all to stop flapping and go back to normal. THAT's your Telegraph comments...
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 20, 2021 17:34:59 GMT
The members of the SAGE emergency groups are the leading experts in government and in Science in the respective fields of emergency. For the latter what makes them scientific leaders is that their research and opinions are usually considered solid and widely accepted amongst the relevant experts. I am mostly with you on this: its not like SAGE is one person, it is a group of people who in effect one expects are challenging each other and in effect performing peer review of each others input. Nonetheless, they have wrapped up in the whole COVID thing for a long time now (no s*** sherlock I hear you say), which means one has to acknowledge the potential/risk for 'group think' to have developed. I don't know how much churn/injection of fresh faces there have been into SAGE over the last close to 2 years. It would be good if there has been (i recall that some members of SAGE or its sub-committees resigned when certain members of the govt couldn't find their way to following the same rules that they had placed on others).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2021 17:38:07 GMT
the 99 are idiots and are holding our great leader hostage...
I'll get my coat.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 20, 2021 17:38:13 GMT
But you might expect them typically to be amongst the closest supporters of the SAGE and government line, no? Umm, have you followed any news in the last week or so? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-5965985199 Tory MPs - almost exclusively at the ERGier end of the spectrum - rebelled against the gov't and voted against some of the proposed measures because they don't think there's any need at all for them... The further-right end of the party are in denial about the 'vid, and want us all to stop flapping and go back to normal. THAT's your Telegraph comments... That's quite an assumption on your part (and an incorrect one) that the only people who comment there have to be far right. I think you underestimate the mood of the people.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,040
Likes: 5,156
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 20, 2021 17:41:24 GMT
Umm, have you followed any news in the last week or so? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-5965985199 Tory MPs - almost exclusively at the ERGier end of the spectrum - rebelled against the gov't and voted against some of the proposed measures because they don't think there's any need at all for them... The further-right end of the party are in denial about the 'vid, and want us all to stop flapping and go back to normal. THAT's your Telegraph comments... That's quite an assumption on your part (and an incorrect one) that the only people who comment there have to be far right. I think you underestimate the mood of the people. No, I think it's a perfectly safe bet around the political leanings of the majority of the foam-flecked green-ink droolings from the Torygraph commentards...
|
|
.
