agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,048 
Likes: 4,438
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 5, 2022 9:32:55 GMT
Seely's either an idiot or deliberately misunderstanding for the sake of making a political (non) point. Modelling is an uncertain science. "Could" is not the same as "would". Ferguson's also said (in a Today interview on 19/12) that hospitals are "at risk of being overwhelmed". This does not mean that they will be - merely that there was (at that time) a (significant) risk. I don't think that risk has yet gone away completely. London may be past the worst but we don't know what will happen when the wave peaks in other less well-resourced parts of the country. An NHS leader in the north west sounded pretty nervous on the news yesterday. The job of decision makers is to plan in the face of uncertainty. Different people will have different views on what balance to strike. This paper, co-authored by Ferguson, addresses the communication of uncertainty and may be of interest. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436521000669?via%3DihubRegardless of how well uncertainty is communicated to decision-makers, it won't always be reflected in reports by journalists looking for a sound-bite! The term 'could' is completely meaningless unless the likelihood is specified:
- My next Amazon package could be delivered by Vladimir Putin
- The next time I go to the pub I could be served by the queen
- If I sign on to an internet dating site I could start a torrid affair with a former Miss world.
Even though all of these could happen, I'm not holding my breath. In reality all that needs to happen is that the interviewer just asks the expert what is the likelihood of the forecast coming true. When the expert says I don't have a scooby doo we will all know how seriously to take their comments.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,048
Likes: 4,438
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 5, 2022 10:23:22 GMT
Keir Starmer tests positive (again)
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jan 5, 2022 10:25:34 GMT
To misquote Eisenhower, "models are useless, but modelling is essential".
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,019
Likes: 5,147
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 5, 2022 10:30:40 GMT
The next time I go to the pub I could be served by the queen She was busy. 
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,594
Likes: 2,624
|
Post by keitha on Jan 5, 2022 11:45:53 GMT
Novak Djokovic is causing a lot of anger in Australia.
the Tennis authorities apparently gave him an exemption from the Australian Covid Vaccination rules ( he is known to be anti Vaccination )
Border Force Australia say he has to comply with Government rules not state or Tennis Rules. it is also reported they are saying they have an issue with his travel declaration.
the Australian PM says "he must prove his exemption or will be on next plane home " my understanding is Australian Rules are simple you must have a medical exemption from being vaccinated,not ( as would appear to be the case ) a self declared I won't have the vaccination
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jan 5, 2022 12:23:11 GMT
Hasn't curtailed his enthusiasm for promoting excessively worrying figures, although he may be called to account soon... Daily Telegraph, 2nd Jan:- "The latest daily data shows 73 Covid deaths in England and Wales.
Bob Seely, a Tory MP, has applied for an emergency debate in Parliament when it returns this week on the use of Covid modelling after a study by Prof Neil Ferguson suggested deaths could reach 4,000 per day this month.
"It doesn't look as if it is getting anywhere near that," Mr Seely said. "There have got to be some significant question marks about why the modelling is so wrong, and why effectively the predictions are not working."
Seely's either an idiot or deliberately misunderstanding for the sake of making a political (non) point. Modelling is an uncertain science. "Could" is not the same as "would". Ferguson's also said (in a Today interview on 19/12) that hospitals are "at risk of being overwhelmed". This does not mean that they will be - merely that there was (at that time) a (significant) risk. I don't think that risk has yet gone away completely. London may be past the worst but we don't know what will happen when the wave peaks in other less well-resourced parts of the country. An NHS leader in the north west sounded pretty nervous on the news yesterday. The job of decision makers is to plan in the face of uncertainty. Different people will have different views on what balance to strike. This paper, co-authored by Ferguson, addresses the communication of uncertainty and may be of interest. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755436521000669?via%3DihubRegardless of how well uncertainty is communicated to decision-makers, it won't always be reflected in reports by journalists looking for a sound-bite! I very much doubt he's an idiot, having risen to Captain in the Intelligence Corps and then MP. Prof Ferguson has plenty of previous form for estimating way too bleakly and it's only right to inspect his models more closely. If that leads to a better understanding by the decision makers of how to interpret probabilities and confidence intervals, then that's all for the good. For two years now, virtually all the Covid modelling has turned out to be too pessimistic, so a debate on its use and interpretation seems like a reasonable and sensible idea. We know that "could" does not equate to "would", but if 4000 deaths a day was really put forward as a likely scenario with any weight behind it, and the true figure turns out to be two orders of magnitude lower, some questions surely need to be asked.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jan 5, 2022 12:30:56 GMT
"Military intelligence" being the classic example of an oxymoron.
That aside I have no problem at all with scrutiny of the models produced by Ferguson and his team (or anybody else). You're absolutely right to say that they have been wide of the mark throughout the pandemic.
No doubt there'll be lots to learn.
I just hope those lessons don't inform the next pandemic the wrong way...
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,621
Likes: 1,741
|
Post by benaj on Jan 5, 2022 12:31:20 GMT
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,594
Likes: 2,624
|
Post by keitha on Jan 5, 2022 13:45:58 GMT
I very much doubt he's an idiot, having risen to Captain in the Intelligence Corps and then MP. Prof Ferguson has plenty of previous form for estimating way too bleakly and it's only right to inspect his models more closely. If that leads to a better understanding by the decision makers of how to interpret probabilities and confidence intervals, then that's all for the good. For two years now, virtually all the Covid modelling has turned out to be too pessimistic, so a debate on its use and interpretation seems like a reasonable and sensible idea. We know that "could" does not equate to "would", but if 4000 deaths a day was really put forward as a likely scenario with any weight behind it, and the true figure turns out to be two orders of magnitude lower, some questions surely need to be asked. yep, he was behind some of the disastrous modelling of the last foot and mouth. It also further emphasises what was said pages back that the modellers were told only to model bad scenarios. at least one of the Health Authorities has previous for declaring incidents when what they should be doing is looking at staffing levels, or more precisely the ratios between the Admin side and the front line nurses and HCA's etc. the normal response by at least 1 trust to these incidents is to insist on more reports from Nursing staff and Doctors and to appoint more admin to ensure they comply. It seems many seem to think that reports are more important than caring for patients
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,710
Likes: 2,985
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 5, 2022 14:00:22 GMT
I very much doubt he's an idiot, having risen to Captain in the Intelligence Corps and then MP. Prof Ferguson has plenty of previous form for estimating way too bleakly and it's only right to inspect his models more closely. If that leads to a better understanding by the decision makers of how to interpret probabilities and confidence intervals, then that's all for the good. For two years now, virtually all the Covid modelling has turned out to be too pessimistic, so a debate on its use and interpretation seems like a reasonable and sensible idea. We know that "could" does not equate to "would", but if 4000 deaths a day was really put forward as a likely scenario with any weight behind it, and the true figure turns out to be two orders of magnitude lower, some questions surely need to be asked. yep, he was behind some of the disastrous modelling of the last foot and mouth. It also further emphasises what was said pages back that the modellers were told only to model bad scenarios. at least one of the Health Authorities has previous for declaring incidents when what they should be doing is looking at staffing levels, or more precisely the ratios between the Admin side and the front line nurses and HCA's etc. the normal response by at least 1 trust to these incidents is to insist on more reports from Nursing staff and Doctors and to appoint more admin to ensure they comply. It seems many seem to think that reports are more important than caring for patients First paragraph - completely agree. Second, restructuring admin/managerial stuff in an organisation the size of the NHS takes years (at least months) even if you o make the right calls. For the here and now, given that most people are likely to become infected with omicron in the next week or three, I think we should drastically look at testing. As currently we are documenting millions of people who are otherwise ok to work and preventing key workers from getting to the office/hospital/etc as current rules force them to quarantine.
|
|
JamesFrance
Member of DD Central
Port Grimaud 1974
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 897
|
Post by JamesFrance on Jan 5, 2022 14:04:58 GMT
And apparently the US saw >1,000,000 cases reported today. So France leading the way in Europe with 272k, UK in second place and Italy coming up on the rails with 170k. If you fancy an each way flutter then Greece (population circa 10m) could be a good bet with 50k cases. It seems odd that Germany has dropped the weekly average by half over the last month, with just a hint of an upturn this week.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,594
Likes: 2,624
|
Post by keitha on Jan 5, 2022 14:10:29 GMT
And stop wasting tests
from sky sports :-
There were 14,250 tests in the period between December 27 and January 2, with nine fewer positive Covid-19 tests compared with the previous week.
so 7 days 2000 tests a day or 100 tests per club per day
from personal knowledge more than 1 person I know is doing a lateral flow test every day "just in case"
Oh and the stupidity of the rules in Wales, you can be fined for going to the office for a meeting, but it's Ok to have that same meeting in a pub !
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jan 5, 2022 14:56:19 GMT
So France leading the way in Europe with 272k, UK in second place and Italy coming up on the rails with 170k. If you fancy an each way flutter then Greece (population circa 10m) could be a good bet with 50k cases. It seems odd that Germany has dropped the weekly average by half over the last month, with just a hint of an upturn this week. Omicron hasn't really taken off in Germany yet, still mainly slower spreading Delta.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,621
Likes: 1,741
|
Post by benaj on Jan 5, 2022 14:57:26 GMT
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,019
Likes: 5,147
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 5, 2022 15:20:48 GMT
Yeh, why bother taking them in the first place? Fail an LFT, no symptoms? Hey-ho. No need for a PCR to confirm it. So why bother even taking the LFT? It certainly solves the problems of rapidly rising numbers of cases... <gibber>
|
|
