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.

Why would the government like lockdowns?

I don't think they 'like' them, but they're easier than having to sort out systematic issues with the nhs, or admit their failings here

However in this case, I think the aim was about driving booster uptake, which in itself is the right thing to do. I'm just getting increasingly queasy about the blatant 'ramping up fear' techniques being used to do it.

When H1N1 was a threat, in 2009, the modellers made worst-case scenario predictions

But they didnt present them publicly as the the only likely scenarios, is the difference

If the Government only have a limited amount of resources, including time, there is no point dicking around looking at best cases.

It's not "dicking around", is it? probability should surely come into it too. People's livelihoods and mental health are also at stake here. I think Nelson and pp have a point here. Covid is not the be all and end all of everything. Lockdowns aren't cost free and "we'd best do it to be on the safe side". The government need to consider the whole picture.

This is interesting:

Prof. Robert Dingwall, until recently a JCVI expert, has saidid_ that Medley’s candour reveals “a fundamental problem of scientific ethics in Sage” - ie, a hardwired negativity bias. “The unquestioning response to the brief is very like that of SPI-B's behavioural scientists,” he says and suggests that the Covid inquiry looks into all this.^

When H1N1 was a threat, in 2009, the modellers made worst-case scenario predictions

Did we lock down the country based on these? No, we did not.

However in this case, I think the aim was about driving booster uptake, which in itself is the right thing to do. I'm just getting increasingly queasy about the blatant 'ramping up fear' techniques being used to do it.

How do you think they should do it, instead of "get boosted to protect yourselves and others, and because otherwise the risk to the NHS is too great".

What is the sage guy says make sense. He is not saying that they are making a prediction of whether something will happen but they are saying if it does happen then what are the outcomes.

It’s a bit like saying I have a super computer to model what happens if my house catches fire, but I don’t use it to model what happens if my house doesn’t catch fire.

But fair enough the next question is, do you recon my house will catch fire! But that is actually a different question.

Elsewhere someone posted data showing that at no point has even the best case scenario modelled by SAGE been exceeded in terms of numbers - or to put it another way they just plain got it wrong

I'll try to find the post to put on here, but to me it suggests the need for caution over the models no matter how much some love the doomsday scenarios

And yes, I'd also like to see the assessments of lockdown consequences which have allegedly been done, except they'd almost certainly be suppressed

It’s a bit like saying I have a super computer to model what happens if my house catches fire, but I don’t use it to model what happens if my house doesn’t catch fire.

But fair enough the next question is, do you recon my house will catch fire! But that is actually a different question.

It is, but extremely relevant. If not the most relevant question.

@kistanbul

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.

Just to be clear, I’m not on Fraser Nelson’s side of this argument - but don’t risk assessments generally look at both impact and likelihood?

Things like flood defences might be built to withstand a 1 in 100 year event - that’s not the worst case scenario, in a 1 in 1000 year event they could be totally overwhelmed.

@HarrietteNightingale

When H1N1 was a threat, in 2009, the modellers made worst-case scenario predictions

Did we lock down the country based on these? No, we did not.

Not sure what your point is given COVID is far worse than flu

@TheKeatingFive

I’m genuinely confused as to why people want to spend taxpayers’ money on models that don’t require the government to plan anything.

Who said they do? They don't want to be misled about what the models cover. Again, I am struggling to understand why this is a controversial point.

It’s not controversial at all. There have been a lot of comms difficulties. There’s a big problem with looking at likelihood of very serious consequences, which makes communication difficult. Let’s say there’s only a 25% chance that omicron will overwhelm the nhs leading to significant deaths due to car accidents etc not being dealt with. Does that risk need to be mitigated because it probably won’t happen or are the consequences so great that you lockdown anyway? The answer to that question is political, not about modelling. There hasn’t been much nuance in the press over what the models mean, so it’s reasonable that people feel mislead. I’m annoyed at Fraser Nelson etc for playing what my Aunt Eddie used to call “silly buggers”. He should know better.

@HarrietteNightingale

If the Government only have a limited amount of resources, including time, there is no point dicking around looking at best cases.

It's not "dicking around", is it? probability should surely come into it too. People's livelihoods and mental health are also at stake here. I think Nelson and pp have a point here. Covid is not the be all and end all of everything. Lockdowns aren't cost free and "we'd best do it to be on the safe side". The government need to consider the whole picture.

This is interesting:

Prof. Robert Dingwall, until recently a JCVI expert, has saidid_ that Medley’s candour reveals “a fundamental problem of scientific ethics in Sage” - ie, a hardwired negativity bias. “The unquestioning response to the brief is very like that of SPI-B's behavioural scientists,” he says and suggests that the Covid inquiry looks into all this.^

I see where you are coming from and agree to some to some extent… but the point is is there any value is expending time (certainly large amounts of time) running/considering, for want of a better description, highly optimistic models.

Simplistic I know but for example somebody could run an optimistic model with R at 1.00001 but is there any point in spending a significant amount of time looking at the results?

You could take a range of extreme actions to mitigate the risk of your house catching fire, one would be having it demolished completely so it can't catch fire. What actually is reasonable in the circumstances depends on probability, like most risk analysis does.

I am a scientist, not a conspiracy theorist.
I posted the OP and second post to raise awareness of how dependant we seem to be on a very narrow view of the situation.

Previous modelling vs actual outcome has proved consistently pessimistic (see second post) even when no restrictions were introduced which could have affected the outcomes (eg post-July ‘freedom day’ models).

The government has chosen to rely upon limited groups of scientists with a narrow remit.

To continue in this way without wider analysis and modelling, and no exit strategy is likely to be very damaging.

Not sure what your point is given COVID is far worse than flu

The thought was that H1N1 might prove to be a pandemic on the same scale as COVID, not just "flu"

It's an important issue but I don't like the framing of the title. SAGE model what they're told to model. That's true now as it has been throughout. The question is why they've been told this and how the models are used afterwards. Responsibility lies with the government.

I think the modelling vastly understates the worst case scenario. It talks about potentially up to 10,000 hospitalizations per day without any mention of the fact that we can't physically hospitalise this many people.

‘To continue in this way without wider analysis and modelling, and no exit strategy is likely to be very damaging.’

How do you plan an exit from a potentially ever evolving virus?

The purpose of contingency planning is to be prepared for the worst possible scenario but to hope that the plan is never needed.

The whole idea is to take earlier action to ensure that the worst does not happen.

I wouldn't expect any of SAGEs predictions to be accurate for this reason! The whole point is about doing as much as possible to avoid that situation.

Faced with the prospect of "if we don't lock down now" people are altering their behaviour without intervention from government, to match what SAGE have suggested. Its not as strong as if government intervened but it is making a difference. You only have to walk past a pub in the evening to see this. It should be the busiest week of the year but they just aren't pulling in the punters.

Of course this will be hailed as evidence of SAGEs failure rather than its success. Mainly cos people are fuckwits.

This is the millennium bug all over again.

The government has chosen to rely upon limited groups of scientists with a narrow remit.

I agree. It's not their fault, and it's down to the government to look at the whole picture.

It's The Spectator, who I mistrust even more than the government. Which is pretty impressive!

I think the modelling vastly understates the worst case scenario. It talks about potentially up to 10,000 hospitalizations per day without any mention of the fact that we can't physically hospitalise this many people.

But again, the probability of this worst case scenario is extremely relevant here. And there are other factors to consider when deciding which extreme actions are reasonable. Lockdown is an extreme action. It has a cost.

It is SAGE's role to identify worst case scenarios, but they are a scientific body. Not everyone on SAGE agrees with the recommendations - which demonstrates that it is an opinion based on evidence. SAGE does not advise on the economy - the damage to the economy will bring long term health issues which may outweigh the damage covid brings. So the government should balance SAGE advice with other considerations

‘The government has chosen to rely upon limited groups of scientists with a narrow remit.’

So why are nearly all other countries following similar plans?! Surely you don’t know better than the majority of world leaders?

Yeah SAGE are doing the quite narrow work that SAGE do. Prof Medley himself has said on Twitter that lockdown also causes significant harm and they've not been asked to perform a balancing exercise. Whole picture isn't their job.