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.

@IWannaWishYouANutNutsChristmas

We know cases are the highest ever.

We know the doubling rate is the fastest ever.

We know hospitalisations in London have risen significantly week on week.

What positive spin do people want put on this?

Perfect example right there. Here’s someone who thinks SAGE are predicting the brutal reality of the situation, and people disagreeing just want a ‘positive spin’ put on it.

We have had nearly two years of SAGE predictions being treated and reported as actual predictions! As “this is what we think is going to happen”, not as “this is what we think a particular scenario would do.” If that isn’t what the modelling is intended to do, then there is a big gap in communication here between the government (including SAGE) and the public. And it’s really not the fault of the public for not all popping down to LSHTM to take a course on epidemic modelling.

@IWannaWishYouANutNutsChristmas

We know cases are the highest ever.

We know the doubling rate is the fastest ever.

We know hospitalisations in London have risen significantly week on week.

What positive spin do people want put on this?

@GoldenOmber

My point, obviously badly expressed, is this:

Our situation is what it is.

No one needs a model to see things are objectively bad right now.

No modelling required.

This is why it matters

Yet another news story using the sage report to push for further restrictions

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10326073/SAGE-calls-closure-non-essential-shops-curb-Omicron.html

Body of scientists says limiting human contact will curb pandemic growth, read all about it!

@Nellodee

Body of scientists says limiting human contact will curb pandemic growth, read all about it!

BOFFINS REVEAL PANDEMIC SECRET!

FASTEST DOUBLING EVER + IMMUNE ESCAPE IS BAD NEWS EVEN IF OMICRON IS 10X LESS SEVERE

Following on from my OP it seems that some ministers have today raised some commented about the current nature of SAGE modelling:

Fraser Nelson writing this evening:
‘Since our Twitter exchange went viral I’ve been contacted by a few government ministers saying they were alarmed to think Sage modellers are not giving the probability of various outcomes and cooking up gloomy scenarios to order.’

Or as he puts it: would a potential lockdown be driven by evidence-based policy or policy- based evidence?

www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2021/12/19/tackled-sage-covid-modeller-twitter-quite-revelation/

‘Since our Twitter exchange went viral I’ve been contacted by a few government ministers saying they were alarmed to think Sage modellers are not giving the probability of various outcomes and cooking up gloomy scenarios to order.’

Whatever scenarios they’re ‘cooking up’ are presumably because of what they’ve been asked to model by the government, though? SAGE are an advisory group, they provide the information they’re asked to provide? So… are they actively lying, or has something gone seriously amiss here with how they understand their relationship with SAGE?

I don’t suggest someone in government is asking them to ‘cook up gloomy scenarios’ for the hell of it either. It just seems like something’s gone really really wrong with how the modelling work SAGE is doing is getting communicated to the world outside SAGE, including apparently some of the ministers they’re doing the work for. It’s just bizarre.

Groupthink.

"[...] making decisions as a group, resulting typically in unchallenged, [...] decision-making."

I wouldn't be surprised if this pattern replicates across the EU, and even the world. There's a lot to be lost by standing out from the crowd in the middle of a global emergency, potentially wasting a lot of people's time, by asking 'why?'.

Had the definition been tighter, I would have expected analysis of hospitalisations to be helpful in informing decisions in the coming days and weeks, but even this is likely to be significantly skewed by the increased transmissibility of omicron.

The current definition of a COVID hospitalisation (from gov.uk, link below) is:

‘people admitted to hospital who tested positive for COVID-19 in the 14 days prior to admission, and those who tested positive in hospital after admission. Inpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 after admission are reported as being admitted on the day prior to their diagnosis. Admissions to all NHS acute hospitals and mental health and learning disability trusts, as well as independent service providers’

As the number of people admitted to hospital for other reasons, including mental health, who happen to test positive for COVID at or following admission increases rapidly, so the COVID ‘hospitalisations’ will also appear to skyrocket.

Omicron appears likely to spread much more quickly in hospitals than did previous variants.

The concern is that the ‘real world’ hospitalisation data will be used as somewhat spurious evidence for future restrictions unless the significance of COVID hospitalisation definitions and nosocomial infections are factored into the analysis.

coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare

(Click on number to reveal definition)

@puppeteer
Sweden stuck its head above the parapet, and England to an extent in July 2021.

@nordica

But we know from the past two years that if anything, the current government is not going to put in restrictions until and unless absolutely necessary. You can't exactly say they have been overly cautious so far.

It is generally the best approach in life to take precautions based on worst case scenarios because not taking preventative action could have a much worse outcome. If anything the government failed to plan and has always acted a little too late.

I'm taking it you never cross the road then. Seeing as in the worst case scenario is that you'll be hit by a vehicle and die. Or step out of your door, because again you might be hit by a car, or lightning or a loose roof tile. There again maybe you shouldn't get out of bed, worst case scenario you slip and fall down the stairs. Bugger that don't even get in to bed, the ceiling might cave in.

Yes these are all increasingly unlikely but are all still actually possible

I read the SAGE consensus statement on 15 December and skim read the 2 modelling papers they used. They say due to a lack of data at that stage, they assume Omicron has the same severity as Delta but do write if omicron exhibits lower severity than Delta this would decrease the projected number of severe outcomes in their model.

The model used looks at four different scenarios such as high immune escape, high booster effect, low immune escape, low booster effect etc.

@Zotter

I read the SAGE consensus statement on 15 December and skim read the 2 modelling papers they used. They say due to a lack of data at that stage, they assume Omicron has the same severity as Delta but do write if omicron exhibits lower severity than Delta this would decrease the projected number of severe outcomes in their model.

The model used looks at four different scenarios such as high immune escape, high booster effect, low immune escape, low booster effect etc.

Anyone who has so much as glanced at it knows that.

But it's more fun for some people to pretend they didn't model various degrees of Omicron severity etc.

It seems from reports of yesterday’s cabinet meeting that ministers are finally looking at the bigger picture rather than taking the SAGE modelling at face value without context.
This will hopefully mean much better decision making in the future.

@CamQ

It seems from reports of yesterday’s cabinet meeting that ministers are finally looking at the bigger picture rather than taking the SAGE modelling at face value without context. This will hopefully mean much better decision making in the future.

I think it actually means no change in how they go about it.

There are many people in the government who have behaved woefully and at times shown that they do not understand all the issues.

But I don't believe they have ever failed to look at the bigger picture, or failed to read the SAFE reports -- which include all the models, not just the doomsday ones the press lit on. Also they are not short of officials explaining how to use a 'reasonable worst case scenario' as a planning tool. And they're Tories, who instinctively go to the side of business and the economy - so that part of the picture is front and central.

Education got a very short straw, though

@CamQ

It seems from reports of yesterday’s cabinet meeting that ministers are finally looking at the bigger picture rather than taking the SAGE modelling at face value without context. This will hopefully mean much better decision making in the future.

I haven’t read anything but you make some good points generally

I did listen to Jeremy Farrar this morning R4 who agreed on the uncertainty atm and data over 48 to 36 hours being key. So not in disagreement with waiting.

Then followed by discussion that a broad range of considerations are important.

I prefer more weight to those so I hope so

JF talks about a paper that’s due to be released. Anyone know what the paper is?

“There's a paper coming out today. If it does show transmission is continuing to rise, and hospitalisations in London and across the rest of the country are starting to rise, the government will have to act before Christmas."

Imperial College I believe.
Denmark released some positive omicron data yesterday.

Ish - it showed that 98.something of these with other variants did not need hospital compared with 99.something if those omicron (bit of care needed with the data as last couple of days was caveated as incomplete)

That is of course good, but it's not clear that it's good enough to choke off a big rise in the actual numbers admitted if the number of cases skyrockets. Also, it's showing that omicron is hitting younger age groups there, and the numbers admitted might change if it starts rising in older (riskier) age groups too.

So some optimism, but needs to be tempered.

Bottom line, it's still watch and wait

Yes- 98.5% cases for other variants don’t lead to hospitalisation vs 99.4% omicron cases (n=c18,500 omicron cases from memory).
So in Denmark at least, omicron hospitalisations are currently 60% lower than for other variants in similar population.

You’re right of course, it’s still early days.

Yesterday’s report from Denmark:

files.ssi.dk/covid19/omikron/statusrapport/rapport-omikronvarianten-19122021-hp16

But it absolutely underscores the extent to which there is literally no data on this yet...

The 60% calculation is probably correct (I didn't check it).

But it's based on a total of 18,366 Omnicron cases (which sounds lot).

Of which only 30 ended up in hospital (which in anyone's book is a tiny number).

And then we have