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.

@Moonopoly

‘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?

Maybe start strengthening the NHS so it doesnt crumble at the smallest bit of stress?

This has.

Where is it then?

I don't just mean economics, I mean the short and long term societal costs of isolating people and shutting society down.

@TheKeatingFive how would you deal with a pandemic? It’s not just England that has done this. It’s the whole world!
It’s shit and has had a human impact but it’s a pandemic.

www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/12/all-over-60s-should-have-booster-vaccines-as-soon-as-possible/

Here's some information on boosters in the NL

@TheKeatingFive

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

This is wrong - why guess or make up stats that are so easily disproved?

@Bovrilly I think PP has a specific agenda so isn’t interested in things such as facts

how would you deal with a pandemic?

Because the issue is fundamentally healthcare resource, I would have prioritised this.

Yes that takes time, but 22 months would have achieved significant amounts.

70 billion has been spent on shutting viable businesses down and keeping the healthy locked down and isolated. A much bigger proportion of that should have been ploughed into healthcare resource.

There's also the issue of decades of underfunding of the nhs.

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

Well, no, that is one way of interpreting the Twitter conversation that Fraser Nelson has chosen to promote. It’s a skewed view in itself. Re-read the article that was posted in the OP and specifically Prof Medley’s own words (hopefully he will write something long form or give an interview soon though because Twitter posts are dire for any kind of clear communication). SAGE answers the questions the government asks them. It’s probably just as simple as that.

SAGE answers the questions the government asks them. It’s probably just as simple as that

Absolutely, but who in government chose to ask only those questions and why?

@LemonViolet

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.

I think this is an important point. I read a quote earlier that said something like "No one gets called a hero because they worked hard to prevent a disaster". Basically people will just assume that the disaster wouldn't have happened anyway, rather than recognise the work that went in to preventing it.

I'm by no means calling the government heroes, and I think they've been utterly appalling, BUT we have avoided the worst-case scenarios by taking action. Some people, though, seem determined to believe that those actions were unnecessary because "they haven't stopped Covid". They were never designed to stop Covid because that wasn't an option; they were designed to ensure we avoided the worst case scenarios.

No impacts of lockdown have been modelled all I could find was this.

gh.bmj.com/content/6/8/e006653

People who need to know the worst-case scenarios so they can plan how to avoid them…….the point being they know they are looking at worst case scenarios, that’s what they asked for. They know that better variables would bring about better scenarios. Everything is constantly adjusted as further data becomes available. That’s how this whole thing works. None of this is news.

Sorry my 8:12 post is in response to Keating’s 8:07 post

[quote Moonopoly]@Bovrilly I think PP has a specific agenda so isn’t interested in things such as facts[/quote]
I guess I'm naive but even after Brexit and two years of pandemic I am still amazed when people fall for the "don't listen to the experts, they're just trying to scare you" bullshit peddled by this government and the right wing press. I mean I guess they wouldn't do it if people were able to think critically about what they are being told, but still, I'm always amazed.

the point being they know they are looking at worst case scenarios, that’s what they asked for.

They know, yes.

That wasn't how it was presented publicly, is the point.

Just to be clear, this isn't Sage's fault, it's the governments. It's just that Prof Medley seems to have inadvertently exposed that.

@Moonopoly

‘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?

They could have started by not scrapping the country's pandemic preparedness plan. Or not privatising the PPE storage (previously managed by the army, it was sold to private companies in Cameron's time, whereupon the PPE was largely dumped into big warehouses and let to decay).

People seem to forget that governments are supposed to have plans for these sorts of scenarios. Ok they can't plan for every eventuality, but they should at least have an understanding of what's needed and who can supply it, what questions to ask, what to do in X, Y, Z scenario etc.

I'm fed up of hearing "but it's a pandemic, we've never had one before, how can they know what to do?!" when 1) we have had pandemics before, and 2) it was virtually certain that we would have another very soon (they appear on average every 100 years or so).

Governments are responsible for having plans in place for all kinds of unlikely events; they shouldn't be taken completely by surprise and be fumbling in the dark.

I am still amazed when people fall for the "don't listen to the experts, they're just trying to scare you" bullshit peddled by this government and the right wing press.

It's the actual government I have issue with.

Isn’t it obvious why is the government don’t need SAGE to model best case scenarios? It’s basic risk assessment. They want to plan what policy mitigations to put in place if things are bad. If things are good, there isn’t anything to mitigate.
I work in a field where we model different scenarios. It’s a massive waste of resources to model scenarios that don’t require mitigations.
Don’t blame SAGE if he press and Frazer Nelson can’t get their heads round the difference between a model and a forecast.

Isn’t it obvious why is the government don’t need SAGE to model best case scenarios?

Well not really, making good decisions is about modelling all possible / plausible scenarios.

However, the specific issue here is that it wasn't presented publicly as worst case scenarios only.

The scandal is a decade of underfunding public health, not modelling. We’re facing lockdown because conservative governments have cut our health and care systems to the bone.

The scandal is a decade of underfunding public health

Well I totally agree with you there

@Blurp believe me I agree with you on that, and some. There are many things this Government should have done much, much better on.
However the tone of the OP and PP are a bit too anti-lockdown conspiracy for my liking so the questions and comments already have a specific lens to them.

@kistanbul absolutely.

@UnmentionedElephantDildo

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

Because it's The Spectator. Because Fraser Nelson. Utterly irresponsible.

As I understand it, they’re not worst case scenarios, but scenarios that require government action. If you want to make a road safer, you might model what would happen if there were road closures increasing traffic volume, a big event, a local school doing a big walk to school promotion. It would be irresponsible to use resource to model what would happen if everyone used the roads very safely, because there would be no mitigation required.