Left Back Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 3 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said: That would have been a mega-tsunami compared to previous peaks. The worst case scenario comprised a range, not an absolute number. 25000 by Dec 20th may have been the worst of the worst case numbers but it was never likely. Didn't stop them throwing those numbers around and firing in restrictions based on them. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 1 minute ago, Stephen Malkmus said: That would have been a mega-tsunami compared to previous peaks. Well, yes. But it was what they modelled as "worst case" Your position here seems to be that because it was in the range of worst case (which IIRC was around 12,000 - 50,000) then they were right, whilst simultaneously agreeing that 50,000 was a ridiculous suggestion. The 7 day average peaked at 16,400 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Malkmus Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: Well, yes. But it was what they modelled as "worst case" Your position here seems to be that because it was in the range of worst case (which IIRC was around 12,000 - 50,000) then they were right, whilst simultaneously agreeing that 50,000 was a ridiculous suggestion. The 7 day average peaked at 16,400 My only position is that there was a "tsunami" of cases, even if that didn't reach the absolute worst case scenario levels at the earliest predicted date. 8 minutes ago, Left Back said: Didn't stop them throwing those numbers around and firing in restrictions based on them. A fair criticism if the politicians were throwing around those numbers. It was probably mostly the media though Edited January 12, 2022 by Stephen Malkmus 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) 39 minutes ago, 101 said: Pretty sure Scotrail had to draft an interim time table, the Police had to use probationers to cover shifts, NHS Grampian publicly said they were struggling. There is more than one reason to attempt to control. In fairness the 10 day isolation was the cause of the need to punt probationers in to shifts, if it was reduced to 5 days it wouldnt be that much of an issue. In most public sector agencies the isolation was the key issue. Which given the seriously mild symptoms/illness is a significant issue. Edited January 12, 2022 by Inanimate Carbon Rod 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 12 minutes ago, Donathan said: Is this “TLDR news” the new version of the now banned Politics For All? They have been going for ages and to be fair to them have been quite fair and balanced. Check out their YouTube for some longer form explainers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 3 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said: My only position is that there were a "tsunami" of cases, even if that didn't reach the absolute worst case scenario levels. A fair criticism if the politicians were throwing around those numbers. It was probably mostly the media though They lifted it straight out of the governments own evidence paper. They literally gave the media carte blanche to distribute that information to the masses via any outlet they wanted to. You can't blame the media when its the governments own published numbers. There is no defence here. None at all. The government got themselves in a big flap, tried to scare everyone and fired in some restrictions. they then played the "bad Tories" line because Boris didn't buckle under and start throwing money at them so they could fire in even more restrictions (as it was stated many times that they wanted to do). Boris took the right action (probably for the wrong reasons) and thank christ he did otherwise we'd be back to 2020 lockdowns again and months away from having any kind of exit. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 7 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said: My only position is that there was a "tsunami" of cases, even if that didn't reach the absolute worst case scenario levels at the earliest predicted date. A fair criticism if the politicians were throwing around those numbers. It was probably mostly the media though There was a 1/3rd of a Tsunami based on the highest 7 day average. That I understand means it should have been renamed a Tidal Wave. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 1 minute ago, oaksoft said: Yes this was BECAUSE of restrictions forcing asymptomatic people and those who were close contacts to isolate, not because of covid. You are getting cause and effect the wrong way round. All of that was on Sturgeon. All of it. More infections = more close contacts right? Who is calling for an end to isolation for vaccinated people that's the alternative right? I think there will be a panic if essential staff are still working whilst Covid positive, but tbh I don't see anything wrong with it. If they are well why have them off? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Malkmus Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Left Back said: They lifted it straight out of the governments own evidence paper. They literally gave the media carte blanche to distribute that information to the masses via any outlet they wanted to. You can't blame the media when its the governments own published numbers. I wouldn't blame the government for being transparent with modelling data. It's not their fault that the media will sensationalise things. I'd rather modelling data was published and misinterpreted rather than hidden away. I'd also be interested to see any Scottish media reports that mentioned 50000 cases per day as a likely outcome. Edited January 12, 2022 by Stephen Malkmus 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 4 minutes ago, 101 said: I think there will be a panic if essential staff are still working whilst Covid positive You shouldn't know tbh. If you are well enough to go to work you shouldn't be wasting time and money on a test. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 4 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said: I'd also be interested to see any Scottish media reports that mentioned 50000 cases per day as a likely outcome. Nicola Sturgeon claimed yesterfay that we only didn't get there because she put restrictions in place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 31 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said: That would have been a mega-tsunami compared to previous peaks. The worst case scenario comprised a range, not an absolute number. 25000 by Dec 20th may have been the worst of the worst case numbers but it was never likely. Wasn't the worst case scenario based on no interventions. If you are claiming that we stuck to the worst case scenario even after interventions then clearly a - the model was wrong and ; b - the restrictions were useless 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 Just now, Stephen Malkmus said: I wouldn't blame the government for being transparent with modelling data. It's not their fault that the media will sensationalise things. I'd rather modelling data was published and misinterpreted rather than hidden away. I'd agree with the part in bold. Unfortunately the modelling data they based their actions on was like every other model produced during this pandemic. A work of fantasy with zero grounding in reality. A model can be produced to say anything you want. They got models to say what they wanted and based their actions on the worst case scenario rather than what was likely to happen based on the real-world data that was already known from South Africa. They then use the line "it would be worse except for the 'measures' we put in place" as Sturgeon said yesterday (not an exact quote but close enough). Unfortunately for her anyone with a brain can see we're following a similar trajectory to England who didn't shit the bed and just let life mostly carry on. Fair play. At least you're trying to make an argument to defend their actions. I don't think you're making a very good job of it as there's nothing to justify them but it's a better attempt than the usual suspects have made lately.. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 10 minutes ago, 101 said: More infections = more close contacts right? Who is calling for an end to isolation for vaccinated people that's the alternative right? I think there will be a panic if essential staff are still working whilst Covid positive, but tbh I don't see anything wrong with it. If they are well why have them off? With the range of PPE that is available, it would be easy to ensure healthcare staff with mild Covid were wearing PP3 style mask at all time. They would be virtually guaranteed not to spread the virus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Malkmus Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 2 minutes ago, Left Back said: I'd agree with the part in bold. Unfortunately the modelling data they based their actions on was like every other model produced during this pandemic. A work of fantasy with zero grounding in reality. A model can be produced to say anything you want. They got models to say what they wanted and based their actions on the worst case scenario rather than what was likely to happen based on the real-world data that was already known from South Africa. They then use the line "it would be worse except for the 'measures' we put in place" as Sturgeon said yesterday (not an exact quote but close enough). Unfortunately for her anyone with a brain can see we're following a similar trajectory to England who didn't shit the bed and just let life mostly carry on. Fair play. At least you're trying to make an argument to defend their actions. I don't think you're making a very good job of it as there's nothing to justify them but it's a better attempt than the usual suspects have made lately.. Cheers and thanks for putting forward some interesting points, hopefully this thread can be closed in a couple of months 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 15 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said: I wouldn't blame the government for being transparent with modelling data. It's not their fault that the media will sensationalise things. I'd rather modelling data was published and misinterpreted rather than hidden away. I'd also be interested to see any Scottish media reports that mentioned 50000 cases per day as a likely outcome. From here. Sturgeons own words yesterday. https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-update-first-ministers-statement-11-january-2022/ "For instance, our central projection last month was that new infections could reach 50,000 a day by early January." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 30 minutes ago, oaksoft said: No, you're trying to rewrite the past here. The tsunami reference was used because they explicitly feared that enormous numbers of deaths and hospitalisations resulting from the increase in cases would break the NHS. That was the argument against claims that Omicron was less deadly than Delta. Jason and Nicola made heavy play of this argument to support restrictions. Then Leitch went to great lengths to tell us that we'd be looking at the peak in February. He also told us he didn't want it to happen too soon because the NHS couldn't cope with the hospitalisations. They got it spectacularly wrong. Omicron appears to have peaked before they even started the restrictions in anger. We should rename the omicron wave the oaksoft wave. Spoiler Peaks too soon... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian1 Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 3 minutes ago, Left Back said: From here. Sturgeons own words yesterday. https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-update-first-ministers-statement-11-january-2022/ "For instance, our central projection last month was that new infections could reach 50,000 a day by early January." I think you will find the words "likely" and "could" have very different meanings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 Just now, Caledonian1 said: I think you will find the words "likely" and "could" have very different meanings. So why are the government acting as if it's likely? You can't have it both ways. It's again carefully phrased to both scare people and to attempt to justify their actions. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian1 Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 1 minute ago, Left Back said: So why are the government acting as if it's likely? You can't have it both ways. It's again carefully phrased to both scare people and to attempt to justify their actions. the government acted as if it could have happened -9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.