Jump to content

 

 

Coronavirus and the political situation


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, ChelseaBoy said:

Now, that is a shock!!! 

 

That's fine if they want to take an overly authoritarian approach and the people are happy with all the resrictions on their lives as long at the devolved Govts do not come round with the begging bowl asking for more funds to cover this approach has on the economy..... oops too late!

 

project fear much?

 

re-read my position stated above.

 

I advocated earlier restrictions to avoid having the prolonged lockdowns we had to endure.   We locked down far too late and it cost us way more 

Edited by stewarty
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stewarty said:

I don't understand your points.  Like all models, its a prediction, not a guarantee.

 

In any case, what would the worst case scenario be if its not to take no action at all? You say they've been debunked but why is that?  The fact that a course of action was taken to avert the worst case scenario does not disprove it.   Its not about driving fear, its a calculation based on the data.


If you've got a better view on the data at that point, lets hear it.  

 

And lastly, absolutely nobody wants to be in a permanent state of lockdown.  Thats a ridiculous assertion.

 

 

It may be a calculation based on data, but it is how the data is used to create the models that is often flawed and often used to support a particular outcome. Anyone familiar with data modelling can tell you that. 

 

You seem to be unaware of the impact of these predictions which are then trumpeted across the media however far fetched, on peoples already fragile wellbeing. If it reaches the media then these wild projections are treated as inevitabilities. 

 

The better and more rounded view of the data would be best case and worse case modelling, but as SAGE confirmed last week, they only look at the latter, whereas the markets do their own modelling and they believe that this wave will be less severe - just look at the markets.

 

The modellers do not trust the public with the best case modelling as they think the public would then infer there was no problem, which is highly authoritarian and without justification. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, stewarty said:

The Welsh First Minister is Labour, but don't that get in the way of an unfounded rant. 

I said "The Welsh Nationalists" - I didn't mention the Welsh First Minister.

 

Try to read and digest what's written before reacting.  😀

Edited by Gonzo79
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, stewarty said:

project fear much?

 

re-read my position stated above.

 

I advocated earlier restrictions to avoid having the prolonged lockdowns we had to endure.   We locked down far too late and it cost us way more 

I think it has been proven by now that general lockdowns do not work, they just kick the can down the road and as soon as you open up, surprise surprise back comes covid. 

 

I will concede that a targeted package of measures in hospitals, care homes and schools would have averted many of the early deaths among the most vulnerable and someone will have to answer for that - step forward Matt Hancock, the "experts" and senior NHS clinical management.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChelseaBoy said:

It may be a calculation based on data, but it is how the data is used to create the models that is often flawed and often used to support a particular outcome. Anyone familiar with data modelling can tell you that. 

 

You seem to be unaware of the impact of these predictions which are then trumpeted across the media however far fetched, on peoples already fragile wellbeing. If it reaches the media then these wild projections are treated as inevitabilities. 

 

The better and more rounded view of the data would be best case and worse case modelling, but as SAGE confirmed last week, they only look at the latter, whereas the markets do their own modelling and they believe that this wave will be less severe - just look at the markets.

 

The modellers do not trust the public with the best case modelling as they think the public would then infer there was no problem, which is highly authoritarian and without justification. 

 

 

nobody is denying the significant impact on the mental health of a huge number of people

 

models are always a best estimate, and are continually refined.  that isn't a debate.

 

but i'm puzzled by this further assertion that the decisions taken were not about a balance of all of the available data.   where is the evidence that it wasn't? it seems to me that the debate here is about a political calculation of the impacts caused by each of the options under consideration.

 

we've had approaching 150k folk in the UK die from this disease... and thats with a hell of a lot of mitigation put in place and two very lengthy lock downs.  was this the best case scenario? what would have happened if we hadn't locked down for example?

 

could we have done things differently?  I would argue yes, as i've stated, we could have locked down earlier and avoided more deaths, less economic damage and less consequences for mental health and wider health issues that have got worse.  

 

and as for the markets, they may well be correct.  but public policy on health isn't determined by traders in the city.  

 

clearly the government wants more data before making a final call.  i'm prepared to give a little more slack on that, as i can see the dilemmas.  but i do think we need to act soon.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

I said "The Welsh Nationalists" - I didn't mention the Welsh First Minister.

 

Try to read and digest what's written before reacting.  😀

sorry, forgive me... the context was about those charged with making decisions.  but don't let context get in the way of making an unfounded rant

Edited by stewarty
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stewarty said:

the context was about those charged with making decisions.

I often take any excuse to rant about Nationalists (evidence of that is clear in my posting history) but carry on with your subjective contextualisations...

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gonzo79 said:

I often take any excuse to rant about Nationalists (evidence of that is clear in my posting history) but carry on with your subjective contextualisations...

indeed you do not. 

 

merry christmas to all you Teries

Link to post
Share on other sites

just to recap on professor ferguson, here is the imperial college report

 

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

 

it sets out a reasonable worst case scenario in the event that no measures are taken to address covid-19, measures that were largely adopted

 

so much as i can accept there can be criticisms of modelling techniques, flawed data, etc... i'm not sure that applies in this case

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, stewarty said:

merry christmas to all you Teries

I was born in Edinburgh, so I was technically an outsider and not a real Teri.

 

Merry Christmas to you and yours ... hopefully all Bears have a terrific 2022.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.