Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...

[SocketRocket]

Shelagh Fogerty comments in respect of Johnson in PMQs pointing the finger at Starmer's identifying government failures (as he Starmer sees them) as "knocking the public's confidence".

Well Fogerty is clear that over the last four months her confidence has not been knocked by the Opposition, but in the government by "It's incompetence; it's shabbiness; and it's lies" - and she is generally known for being balanced and objective in making honest assessments...

Incompetence, shabbiness and lies - yup - that pretty much sums it up for me - sadly

And what would you understand about 'balanced and objective'

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Shelagh Fogerty comments in respect of Johnson in PMQs pointing the finger at Starmer's identifying government failures (as he Starmer sees them) as "knocking the public's confidence".

Well Fogerty is clear that over the last four months her confidence has not been knocked by the Opposition, but in the government by "It's incompetence; it's shabbiness; and it's lies" - and she is generally known for being balanced and objective in making honest assessments...

Incompetence, shabbiness and lies - yup - that pretty much sums it up for me - sadly

If you are anti- Brexit and anti-government then Shelagh Fogarty will appear both balanced and objective.

Otherwise neither of those adjectives would be applied to her.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And what would you understand about 'balanced and objective'

Have you listened to her? If you do you'll understand.

So for instance she points out that when Johnson was in PMQs today asked about holding a Public Inquiry - he waffled a bit and waved his hands and arms about - and then said he'd indeed be holding an independent inquiry. Not the same thing at all.

When asked whether he'd actually read the report on likelihood, size and impact of a Winter Spike - he said he was aware of it.

Johnson continually tries to cast Starmer as opposing everything the government is trying to do and by doing that Starmer is undermining public confidence and criticising the teams that carrying out such as Test and Trace - when in fact he isn't - he is merely asking searching questions of the PM and of the governments management of such as the T&T programme. Apparently in Johnson's eyes Starmer is not allowed to be asking probing and fact-based questions.

So as far as Fogerty is concerned that sort of dissembling by Johnson is unacceptable in the crisis we are experiencing.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If you are anti- Brexit and anti-government then Shelagh Fogarty will appear both balanced and objective.

Otherwise neither of those adjectives would be applied to her.

You listen?

 

[Ethan]

IMO there is a danger you are letting your disdain colour you interpretation and are thereby letting your anti-Tory "tinted spectacles " prevent you seeing the wider picture. I respect you medical experience but the guys modelling are not idiots. It is not 'mathematical modelling' - these are simulations that use fuzzy logic as well as conventional quantitative input and a range of socio-economic 'model' pfd's. In the Universities of the UK we have some of the most expert 'modellers' and best AI professionals in the world. Your medical expertise and experience is fine but is only partly relevant: it also seems to major on the 20:20 benefit of hindsight.

My criticism is not of the modellers, whom I am sure are not idiots, or modelling itself, but the prominence of modelling in the hierarchy of this policy. There is an old saying 'All models are wrong, but some may be useful'. Modelling is based on assumptions which power the simulations, and is great for academic research and debate. If the assumptions are wrong, no amount of fuzzy logic will produce good data from them. The modellers clearly got those assumptions wrong because they changed them after being pressed to do so by other experts who had better data. The Imperial model was produced with too little external peer review, it now appears there was a large element of groupthink driving it. I have some inside information on the process. But modelling would have been fine if it had been supporting a traditional public health approach, like was the case in other places from S. Korea to Germany. The tracing system could have been expanded at a local level using PHE and community professionals. Instead a large contract was placed with Serco, and one of the Stewards of the Jockey Club, which pushed for Cheltenham to go ahead, placed as the head!

The WHO said at the outset that Govt's (not just this one) should test, test, test. They should trace and test close contacts as well as cases. This Govt stopped tracing in mid-March. At the time, the public health community warned that this was a very bad idea. No hindsight, foresight saying that we needed accurate data and to methodically identify cases. By the time the Govt got their risible test and trace system up, it was far too late. Pick up rates in T&T are abysmal and they don't even bother testing close contacts. It is a waste of time and money.

You are wrong to say it rests on hindsight. All the issues were raised and debated at the time by independent public health experts and other professionals. There was plenty of foresight and warnings in time to act. The idea was relatively simple. Lockdown asap, close the borders, test and trace widely. The UK had an advantage in being a bit further down the line than other European countries but we squandered that advantage.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

You listen?

She hasn't changed since her days on BBC Radio 5.

 

[Hobbit]

Or did they manage to protect the elderly and vulnerable better? If those catching it were younger, not at risk etc then that would explain it. I don't know the answer by the way but it would be an alternative suggestion to their figures.

An interesting exercise, if you're interested, is to look at the number of deaths in Germany in any recent year and the number of deaths this year. Obviously there's more this year but when you deduct the number of C19 deaths from the "more" you will see a gap. Maybe there's been more heart attacks and strokes, and maybe they were a consequence of getting Covid.

There was an article in the press over here a couple of months back in which Germany's counting methods were questioned. Quite what the true figure is I don't know, nor can be bothered to chase up the data, but I get a feeling counting methods might be in the mix somewhere.

 

[ColchesterFC]

An interesting exercise, if you're interested, is to look at the number of deaths in Germany in any recent year and the number of deaths this year. Obviously there's more this year but when you deduct the number of C19 deaths from the "more" you will see a gap. Maybe there's been more heart attacks and strokes, and maybe they were a consequence of getting Covid.

There was an article in the press over here a couple of months back in which Germany's counting methods were questioned. Quite what the true figure is I don't know, nor can be bothered to chase up the data, but I get a feeling counting methods might be in the mix somewhere.

I found the below graph on excess deaths and it certainly seems as though Germany have had many fewer than other countries.


I've no way of confirming the data accuracy but if true it does raise questions as to why Germany has fared so much better.

https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-...ng-excess-mortality-international-comparisons

 

[drdel]

My criticism is not of the modellers, whom I am sure are not idiots, or modelling itself, but the prominence of modelling in the hierarchy of this policy. There is an old saying 'All models are wrong, but some may be useful'. Modelling is based on assumptions which power the simulations, and is great for academic research and debate. If the assumptions are wrong, no amount of fuzzy logic will produce good data from them. The modellers clearly got those assumptions wrong because they changed them after being pressed to do so by other experts who had better data. The Imperial model was produced with too little external peer review, it now appears there was a large element of groupthink driving it. I have some inside information on the process. But modelling would have been fine if it had been supporting a traditional public health approach, like was the case in other places from S. Korea to Germany. The tracing system could have been expanded at a local level using PHE and community professionals. Instead a large contract was placed with Serco, and one of the Stewards of the Jockey Club, which pushed for Cheltenham to go ahead, placed as the head!

The WHO said at the outset that Govt's (not just this one) should test, test, test. They should trace and test close contacts as well as cases. This Govt stopped tracing in mid-March. At the time, the public health community warned that this was a very bad idea. No hindsight, foresight saying that we needed accurate data and to methodically identify cases. By the time the Govt got their risible test and trace system up, it was far too late. Pick up rates in T&T are abysmal and they don't even bother testing close contacts. It is a waste of time and money.

You are wrong to say it rests on hindsight. All the issues were raised and debated at the time by independent public health experts and other professionals. There was plenty of foresight and warnings in time to act. The idea was relatively simple. Lockdown asap, close the borders, test and trace widely. The UK had an advantage in being a bit further down the line than other European countries but we squandered that advantage.

"There is an old saying 'All models are wrong, but some may be useful'" Glib comment that rather devalues your post. Clearly you are not up to speed with modern techniques of simulation and their application.

 

[SocketRocket]

Have you listened to her? If you do you'll understand.

So for instance she points out that when Johnson was in PMQs today asked about holding a Public Inquiry - he waffled a bit and waved his hands and arms about - and then said he'd indeed be holding an independent inquiry. Not the same thing at all.

When asked whether he'd actually read the report on likelihood, size and impact of a Winter Spike - he said he was aware of it.

Johnson continually tries to cast Starmer as opposing everything the government is trying to do and by doing that Starmer is undermining public confidence and criticising the teams that carrying out such as Test and Trace - when in fact he isn't - he is merely asking searching questions of the PM and of the governments management of such as the T&T programme. Apparently in Johnson's eyes Starmer is not allowed to be asking probing and fact-based questions.

So as far as Fogerty is concerned that sort of dissembling by Johnson is unacceptable in the crisis we are experiencing.

My question was 'And what would you understand about balanced and objective'

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Maybe they would have said ‘not before time’

No, you are so transparent that we all know you would have been first in the queue to accuse Boris and government of failing to give adequate notice.
As it happens, it would have been a valid criticism because not all , mostly older, people have the knowledge or means to order masks within a day or so.
But funnily enough, you only relate this subject to your personal situation, ( you say you have masks), and not to what others may find themselves in.?

 

[Foxholer]

My question was 'And what would you understand about balanced and objective'

 

[Ethan]

"There is an old saying 'All models are wrong, but some may be useful'" Glib comment that rather devalues your post. Clearly you are not up to speed with modern techniques of simulation and their application.

So you pick out one line and glibly dismiss it as being glib without commenting on any of the rest.

OK, explain to me how using data from the Spanish flu for the first iteration of the Imperial model was better than using data coming from Italy in real time.

Please refrain from all glibness and be lavish with the details. Bring us all up to speed, if indeed you are there yourself. You have not yet shown any evidence of that, just a willingness to criticise.

The quotation is widely cited in maths and stats, by the way, as a warning to those who overvalue models, because whether you like it or not, or throw in as much fuzzy logic as you like, they are all incomplete. Perhaps you are one of those who should heed it rather than dismiss it.

Models

 

[Ethan]

I found the below graph on excess deaths and it certainly seems as though Germany have had many fewer than other countries.

View attachment 31637
I've no way of confirming the data accuracy but if true it does raise questions as to why Germany has fared so much better.

https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-...ng-excess-mortality-international-comparisons

There is no serious debate that Germany has done such better, whether there are some differences in case recording or not. The likely answers are simple - preparedness, swift decision action, early vigorous testing and tracing and a cautious approach to reopening.

 

[SocketRocket]

There is no serious debate that Germany has done such better, whether there are some differences in case recording or not. The likely answers are simple - preparedness, swift decision action, early vigorous testing and tracing and a cautious approach to reopening.

Testing and tracing doesnt make people with Covid better. If Germany were getting high infection rates why would they get lower death rates unless as previously mentioned it's less vunerable people being affected or they have better ways of dealing with the virus.
Germany have had 70% of the UKs infections but only 20% of the deaths recorded.

 

[Foxholer]

There is no serious debate that Germany has done such better, whether there are some differences in case recording or not. The likely answers are simple - preparedness, swift decision action, early vigorous testing and tracing and a cautious approach to reopening.

I'm still fairly dubious about the reporting methods/approaches by various/many countries that DO contribute. It's telling - well, to me at least - that UK has stopped a couple of key stat items. Similar happened when Boris (?) randomly made the '100K tests/day' announcement, then kludged (actually, lied about imo!) achieving it! Of course, this doesn't mean other countries aren't fudging the figures (though my home one has done fantastically!).
Of course, the worst of all, by pretty much whatever measurement, is USA! Yet Trump is still saying HE has done a fantastic job handling it! The UK's 'Deaths per Million population' is still far too high! I suspect population/acre could well be a factor!

 

[Mudball]

Thank God, Labour is not in power.. else we would have called this omnishambles..

https://twitter.com/x/status/1283376960106881026

 

[Captainron]

They’re called Karen’s apparently.

 

[Ethan]

I'm still fairly dubious about the reporting methods/approaches by various/many countries that DO contribute. It's telling - well, to me at least - that UK has stopped a couple of key stat items. Similar happened when Boris (?) randomly made the '100K tests/day' announcement, then kludged (actually, lied about imo!) achieving it! Of course, this doesn't mean other countries aren't fudging the figures (though my home one has done fantastically!).
Of course, the worst of all, by pretty much whatever measurement, is USA! Yet Trump is still saying HE has done a fantastic job handling it! The UK's 'Deaths per Million population' is still far too high! I suspect population/acre could well be a factor!

Reporting systems clearly vary, as do death certification policies. But Germany has done next in Europe by anyone's assessment. The UK has probably done the worst. The US could do horribly. Trump owns a lot of those deaths through his unwillingness to take it seriously fast enough.

 

[SocketRocket]

Reporting systems clearly vary, as do death certification policies. But Germany has done next in Europe by anyone's assessment. The UK has probably done the worst. The US could do horribly. Trump owns a lot of those deaths through his unwillingness to take it seriously fast enough.

Dont individuals have responsibility for their actions or is it soely the responsibility of the Presedent or Prime minister. Surely we all know how this virus is transported and the potential it has to kill or dissable. We have all seen people giving no regard to social distancing or risk taking, it's too easy to blame the leader or the government for everything and certain people do it with absolutely no balance or reasoning.