Tiers until the end of time

[runningpink]

Quickly putting this up as last thread is full

Someone above was asking about examples of level enhancements. I'm pretty sure when the islands were put into level 1 in the autumn it was level one with no mixing inside households initially.

[quote kurtrussellsbeard]@Scottishskifun thank you. Is it not the case though that they have a duty to look at the worst case scenario.

This is what all the drama was about prof Ferguson wasn't it. Part from his affair I mean. Incorrect statistical modelling? It must be relatively common? [/quote]
You need to be aware of the worst case scenario but you don't necesarily make all decisions on the basis of it, no.

To consider a very different example; let's say I'm modelling interest rates, so I'm projecting what interest rates might be in the future. I'm using a stochastic model so it produces thousands of possible outcomes and they're then analysed to give percentiles and stats. So I have the median, the mean, the range, the different percentiles, the volatility and so on. My charts might then show up to the 99.5th percentile which would be a 1 in 200 possibility of happening.

Let's say I'm projecting 10 years ahead. I could easily have a percentile chart which says the median interest rate is 2%, the bulk (say the 10th to 90th percentiles) of the results are between -0.5% and 4%, and the 99.5th percentile is 15%. Should I make decisions on the basis that interests rates will be 15%? No. You take it in to account, you plan how to manage the risk that it could be, but it's not your central scenario for decision making.

And in the process of doing that projection I will have had to make numerous assumptions and judgements - I'll need to choose which statistical model to use, I'll need to determine what each of the variable in that model will map to, I will need to chose which data to use to set the different values, some will be an expert judgement e.g. what is the realistic long term average for interest rates, others will be based much more on current data which involves knowing where and how to get good reliable data.

Ask 10 economists/actuaries/statisticians to model the same thing and you will get 10 different answers.

@icanboogieboogiewoogie

Someone above was asking about examples of level enhancements. I'm pretty sure when the islands were put into level 1 in the autumn it was level one with no mixing inside households initially.

Yes they were, I think there was als one which was level 2 but with restrictions on hospitality from L3? And of course we had level 4 but with schools and childcare closed.

@StatisticallyChallenged it's genuinely fascinating.

For info for those saying that it's not different to Englands approach......
Page 57 of the strategic framework released today onwards..... Scottish government will now use the more stringent WHO levels for allocating levels and restriction of travel internationally, between England and Scotland and within Scotland need to be limited. Pic of old Scottish levels vs new levels.

So unfortunately no Scotland isn't following England and is not only stricter but much stricter then they even applied themselves before Christmas.

Pass the bloody gin!

@Scottishskifun surely the WHO are exactly whose advice we should be following?

In real terms what difference does this make? Out numbers are generally lower than theirs anyway so should be comparable no? (Numbers again though - I genuinely am useless)

So by the time this lockdown ends it will have been 4 months. Despite vaccines. Does anyone remember when things started opening up again in summer? Was that lockdown longer/shorter than this one?

Chris Whitty has said before it is his job to cover medical risk, it is government's job to balance other risks ie education mental health and the economy he has said he knows it is not a stright medical issue only but he can;t advise on risk of not having education etc because that is not his field of expertise, which is why there needs to be a realisation that it is a balacing of risk but lowering the risk of covid can increase the risk of something else even medically like missed cancers / delayed treatment of strokes not enough physically rehab by physiotherapists etc never mnd mental health and that's before you start throwing education, avoidance of socail harms from mass unemployment homelessness because of financial circumstances that will not be solved when lockdown end, domestic violence, children permanently behind or switched off education, youth unemployment
from a purely medical perspective Whitty maybe right but that is not how life works, lots of balls have to be juggled so several areas get a bit less than ideal so a few get a bit more than nothing

Was very surprised to see a relatively pro NS front page of the Sun today! Restriction related.

@TeacupDrama that's true as well. I just feel a bit of caution for another couple of months is worth it. If one of my loved ones died when the end is so near I would be heartbroken. I feel like the end is in sight it's just best to be sensible a little longer.

@AgentCooper

So by the time this lockdown ends it will have been 4 months. Despite vaccines. Does anyone remember when things started opening up again in summer? Was that lockdown longer/shorter than this one?

From memory, schools and childcare closed 23rd March. Childcare reopened around 17th July (schools obviously later because of holidays) so nurseries have done better this time

Hairdressers etc were similar in terms of both closing and reopening

poor bloody softplay never reopened.

The depressing thing for me is that, after the next 2 stages, we’ll move back into regional differentiation. So no doubt Glasgow will be stuck in level 3 or 4 for ever more. Instead of addressing the issues that cause the higher rates here (levels of deprivation and density of population), we’ll just be stuck in the never ending lockdown.

Teacupsdrama nails it for me. NSseemd to listen to Devi and no one else. No thought to the mental health of school kids, of elderly grandparents with few years left wanting to see family, of business owners fighting to survive.

[quote kurtrussellsbeard]@Scottishskifun surely the WHO are exactly whose advice we should be following?

In real terms what difference does this make? Out numbers are generally lower than theirs anyway so should be comparable no? (Numbers again though - I genuinely am useless) [/quote]
Real terms it moves the goal posts massively to get to Tier 1 numbers have to be less than 20/100,000 compared to old 20-75/100,000. Some parts of the central belt barely achieved

[quote kurtrussellsbeard]@TeacupDrama that's true as well. I just feel a bit of caution for another couple of months is worth it. If one of my loved ones died when the end is so near I would be heartbroken. I feel like the end is in sight it's just best to be sensible a little longer. [/quote]
See I agree with that in general, but I can see why today’s announcement doesn’t feel like that to so many of us. Hang on in there for a couple more months then the light at the end of the tunnel is... Level 3?

People are just going to give up and start breaking the rules now, if it doesn’t feel like there’s much hope in sight no matter what we do.

I don't live in Glasgow and I think it's bloody harsh!

The chances of my loved ones dying are miniscule - those at risk have been vaccinated. The chances of me dying are 1:125,000. The chances of my kids dying is far, far smaller than that. This qcovid.org/ shows you the risks. Tiny!

@GoldenOmber so you agree with the message but not the way she worded it? I mean we're all adults surely? It's not really their job to manipulate us and baby us along.

I think this is what I find most frustrating about today on this thread is this idea that we haven't been spoken to nicely today. Surely it's not about that?

Well @Elvesaremagic that's great for you but not everyone is in that position.

@Scottishskifun

For info for those saying that it's not different to Englands approach...... Page 57 of the strategic framework released today onwards..... Scottish government will now use the more stringent WHO levels for allocating levels and restriction of travel internationally, between England and Scotland and within Scotland need to be limited. Pic of old Scottish levels vs new levels.

So unfortunately no Scotland isn't following England and is not only stricter but much stricter then they even applied themselves before Christmas.

Pass the bloody gin!

These changes really concern me..... current levels are about 130 per 100k in Glasgow, and it looks like the rates are plateauing. Added to that, schools starting to go back..... think we could be in permanent level 3

Which means no travel

@kurtrussellsbeard

Was very surprised to see a relatively pro NS front page of the Sun today! Restriction related.

DR will be gutted. He loves to share Sun front pages alongside some BS, as if it's a peer reviewed academic paper (!)

so you agree with the message but not the way she worded it? I mean we're all adults surely? It's not really their job to manipulate us and baby us along.

I’m not asking to be manipulated and babied along.

I agree with a message which is: stick with it for a few months and there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I don’t agree with a message which is: stick with it for a few months and there is not a light at the end of the tunnel. Fairly clear distinction, no?

It’s not about how she worded it, it’s about the substance of what she said.

@Scottishskifun and what do you want to bet that they won't adjust their calculation of the positivity rate to reflect this either?

The WHO indicators basically look like they will shift everything up a tier.

20/100k is miniscule for a virus where those at risk of it have been vaccinated.

Surely there should be a case for not using case numbers any more, if the virus will continue to transmit, and we should instead use hospitalisation rates.