Yes I know we are sick to death of boring Covid but I could not resist posting this. It is fascinating. And completely blows away any notion that SAGE model and advice predicts anything.

They are asked to produce worse case scenarios for ministers to take decisions against.

They have deliberately ommitted any of the emerging data about Omnicron being less dangerous than Delta. All of their scenarios are built on what is known about Delta, not the new dominant strain.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/my-twitter-c...-modelling-committee

The interview is with the chairman of SAGE.

Also, they probably have to do all this while also go-go dancing and chugging wine at the "business meeting"

Honey wrote:
Also, they probably have to do all this while also go-go dancing and chugging wine at the "business meeting"

Yep! All they do is model things to political order when not partying. Worst hypotheticals please scientists! We will then base decisions on this with no cost-benefit analysis of the impact. Media stories become SAGE stories become public policy...

Wyot wrote:
Yes

They have deliberately ommitted any of the emerging data about Omnicron being less dangerous than Delta. All of their scenarios are built on what is known about Delta, not the new dominant strain.



deliberate?

surely if they were asked to produce "worst case scenario" that's what they did?

we have no idea whether Omicron will transmute into something more deadly..or just fade away (like the Spanish Flu eventually did).

Any responsible government ( Boris?) would surely want to know what's the worst that could happen.

I can imagine the frustration of further lock downs is debilitating, especially for younger more active people but reality comes at us like a hurricane..difficult to avoid.

hedda wrote:
Wyot wrote:
Yes

They have deliberately ommitted any of the emerging data about Omnicron being less dangerous than Delta. All of their scenarios are built on what is known about Delta, not the new dominant strain.



deliberate?

surely if they were asked to produce "worst case scenario" that's what they did?

we have no idea whether Omicron will transmute into something more deadly..or just fade away (like the Spanish Flu eventually did).

Any responsible government ( Boris?) would surely want to know what's the worst that could happen.

I can imagine the frustration of further lock downs is debilitating, especially for younger more active people but reality comes at us like a hurricane..difficult to avoid.

The point Hedda is that the resulting decisions are POLITICAL not based on science or reality as we are continually being told and our Governments are so keen that you believe.

"We generally model what we are asked to model. There is a dialogue in which policy teams discuss with the modellers what they need to inform policy (my italics)."

(Chairman of the SAGE modelling group).

I have lost count on here & elsewhere the number of times you & others have disagreed with the likes of me by arguing that we are not scientists and so not placed to have an informed decision about whether lockdowns should be used or not. The implication being that lockdowns are -by some imaginative leap wherein all debate is subject to an act of attempted semantic murder - science; like particle physics or evolution.

Thus you have avoided debating the question (I don't think in your case deliberately) preferring to "go with the scientists". However, the scientists themselves are neutral about the need for lockdowns; or even the existence of the factors informing their models. The scientists are being utilised.

What they need to inform policy...

Well, anything can be modelled to that end. And what tends to inform - or perhaps more accurately influence - Government policy most Hedda? Is it the fundamental nature of reality; or perhaps 24 hour rolling media and votes?

So we are left with two options as the scientists (in the UK at least) have now blown the cover and revealed that while they use scientific techniques to model scenarios, the scenarios are not based on reality, but made to order for policy ends.

So, is it Media driven inflation or bonkers conspiracy theories?

I don't believe ANY of the conspiracy theories but have noticed politicians adjusting their deeply held ethical convictions as a result of media coverage on one or two ocassions in the past.

Now, on THAT scientific evidence I come to my conclusions.