SAGE only gives govt the bad scenarios…..

[CamQ]

It turns out that the Government uses the pessimistic SAGE models to make decisions without evaluating their probability or context.
The chair of the SAGE modelling committee explained to Fraser Nelson that they have only given the government models of the worst scenarios, not what happens if omicron is a mild disease - and so the government seems only to make decisions based on the worst models, without looking at their probability. This is also on Fraser Nelson’s Twitter.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/my-twitter-conversation-with-the-chairman-of-the-sage-covid-modelling-committee

If this approach continues for every variant we really won’t ever be out of this nightmare.

The government must widen their advice and look at the bigger long term picture.

These graphs show the various SAGE modelling vs what has actually happened so far:

data.spectator.co.uk/category/sage-scenarios

Do you actually read the SAGE reports (they are published)

If so, perhaps you might then rephrase your questions to:

a) why do the press always seem to draw most attention to the worst case scenarios? and
b) who is telling SAGE what they want reports on?

Aren’t the SAGE worst case scenarios what may have happened had we not taken any action - but we did take action - therefore avoided these worst case scenarios? Is that not, erm, good news?

Risk assessment/safeguarding is all about thinking what is the worst things that could happen, how likely are they, and what could be done to avoid them.

who is telling SAGE what they want reports on?

This is the pertinent question

The problem is they don’t know YET if it’s a mild disease so is it not best to air on the side of caution so that we don’t kill a load of people who we could do saved?
Unlike before we should know this data in a couple of weeks, as infections translates to hospitalisations and deaths. If we pause for a couple of weeks to let the boosters work and see the data and we didn’t need it then great but if we don’t and the worse model was correct we can’t undo that.

*be saved

The problem is they don’t know YET if it’s a mild disease so is it not best to air on the side of caution

If you're modelling, you model all possible / plausible scenarios, not just the ones designed to scare the shit out of people.

‘The government must widen their advice and look at the bigger long term picture’

I’m no fan of this Government, by any means, but how do you suggest they long term plan when there are so many unknowns to a pandemic?

@TheKeatingFive which they do… and have done. So OP is incorrect

@TheKeatingFive also as PP have said that’s on the press not Sage

SAGE isn't advising the other European and wider world governments that are taking strong action against Omicron. That suggests to me the is some consensus amongst the wider scientific community about how disruptive Omicron could be, even if it is "mild".

Personally, I think the press and media just pick up on the negative/worst case scenarios aspects of the reports and cause people a lot of stress and anxiety.

I’m no fan of this Government, by any means, but how do you suggest they long term plan when there are so many unknowns to a pandemic?

An attempt to actually analyse the economic, psychological and societal costs of lockdown so that can be weighed up against the threat of covid would be a good starting point.

It's been 22 months and this has never been attempted.

Personally, I think the press and media just pick up on the negative/worst case scenarios aspects of the reports and cause people a lot of stress and anxiety

But that's not what's happened here.

According to the Twitter exchange Sage were expressly not asked to model anything but the most pessimistic scenarios.

If you're modelling, you model all possible / plausible scenarios, not just the ones designed to scare the shit out of people

Precisely.

Which is why I started by asking if OP had read the actual SAGE reports. Which show that they are indeed modelling many scenarios.

So why is the press only reporting one extreme (without explaining why the 'reasonable worst case' is such a useful planning tool)?

Why is The Spectator seeking to discredit SAGE, who have responded to every single question that the government has asked them to report on? The government perhaps needs to be asking different questions of the acknowledgmed experts, not seeking to find different people to answer again the ones which have already been reported on

@TheKeatingFive it definitely has…hence why we came out of lockdown when other countries were still in a level of restrictions. There are hawks and doves in the government.
I take you are anti-lockdown so have a specific view point to share?

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/19/netherlands-to-enter-lockdown-as-nations-across-europe-tighten-curbs-to-slow-omicron-spread

That suggests to me the is some consensus amongst the wider scientific community about how disruptive Omicron could be, even if it is "mild".

Other countries in Europe have much lower numbers of their population boosted and lower incidences of initial vaccination in the crucial over 60s cohorts.

it definitely has

What definitely has? Have you actually read the exchange?

@TheKeatingFive do you have the data to show that?

Oh sorry you mean the analysis.

Where is it then?

Why isn't it constantly referred to when discussions about restrictions come up?

do you have the data to show that?

Easily google-able

‘An attempt to actually analyse the economic, psychological and societal costs of lockdown so that can be weighed up against the threat of covid would be a good starting point.‘

This has. They chose the economy over health at several points in the pandemic. (Im not saying that’s right or wrong) but you can’t say it hasn’t been considered.

I think the Netherlands has something like 6% of its population boosted.

@TheKeatingFive what’s your source though?