blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 14, 2020, 01:35:06 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2252414 Posts in 66527 Topics by 16825 Members
Latest Member: princiigeorge
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Community Forums
| |-+  The Lounge
| | |-+  COVID19
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 173 174 175 176 [177] 178 179 180 181 ... 190 Go Down Print
Author Topic: COVID19  (Read 71160 times)
Ledders
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


View Profile
« Reply #2640 on: May 29, 2020, 10:14:41 PM »

I think govt/SAGE had faith in der models but they were all complete guesswork with far too many unreliable assumptions.

Collectively we were unable to join the dots that an herd immunity strat would overwhelm the NHS until too late.

Then saving the NHS becomes the absolute priority and it all goes to shit in care homes. It has been revealed this logical step was noted in minutes and advice but was passed over at the time.

The PPE and testing debacle is a logical conclusion of a rundown centralised healthcare policy run by a government driven by neoliberal economic policy. Efficient allocation of resources is a theoretical point on a graph and loads of people have died unnecessarily.




Logged
RED-DOG
International Lover World Wide Playboy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 44651



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2641 on: May 29, 2020, 10:22:06 PM »

Nirvana is such a dipshit.

Outside


I was thinking about this post last night and I'm sure it should have been "Carpark".
Logged

Happiness is so amazing, it doesn't even matter if it's yours or not.
jakally
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2000



View Profile
« Reply #2642 on: May 29, 2020, 10:22:19 PM »


It would be interesting if anyone was able to provide evidence in support of the ‘they (U.K gov) did their best on what was known at the time and were just unlucky’ narrative that seems to be a popular view in the thread.


I would be surprised if that was a widely held view here, or elsewhere.
My personal stance is to be as supportive of current policy as is sensible, & that analysis after the event will reveal the effectiveness or not, of the policies & measures employed in the UK.
I would think / hope there are more people in that camp than in the one you are suggesting.
Logged
jakally
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2000



View Profile
« Reply #2643 on: May 29, 2020, 10:24:32 PM »


By any measure I’m a scientist, so your criticisms/negative comparisons don’t really stack up.

1. My criticisms of the government handing of the virus have been scientific and (where it is available) evidence based.


Oh my.
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3877



View Profile
« Reply #2644 on: May 29, 2020, 10:26:42 PM »


It would be interesting if anyone was able to provide evidence in support of the ‘they (U.K gov) did their best on what was known at the time and were just unlucky’ narrative that seems to be a popular view in the thread.

https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1266423527739215874?s=21

This lady has good credentials to make a judgement.

Do you mean like,

"& oh wow- some of the conclusions they reached were way off. 8th SAGE meeting: 'When there is sustained transmission in the UK, contact tracing will no longer be useful."

When there is sustained transmission in the UK - why do you think contact tracing would be useful?

What, to you, is the purpose of contact tracing?


"15th SAGE meeting- March 13: 'SAGE was unanimous that measures seeking to completely suppress spread of COVID-19 will cause a second peak.' 'Community testing is ending today.' 'The science suggests household isolation...of the elderly and vulnerable should be implemented soon.'"

How is this controversial?


"16th SAGE meeting: 'The objective is to avoid critical cases exceeding NHS intensive care and other respiratory support bed capacity.'"

Again - isn't this kind of what the government was suggesting was the strategy all along? There may be a suspicion that it lead to some excess deaths because of the overwhelming focus on 'protecting the NHS' but what we had at that time was doctors in Italy basically choosing who was going to live and die because their hospitals were overwhelmed so I think that links quite clearly to making decisions based on what was known at the time.


Her tone seems to be very much "OMG" but none of what she's posting seems particularly surprising, unknown or contrary to general epidemiological knowledge.

She’s a Professor of Global Public Health. “Her tone seems to be very much OMG” 😊
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3877



View Profile
« Reply #2645 on: May 29, 2020, 10:28:13 PM »


By any measure I’m a scientist, so your criticisms/negative comparisons don’t really stack up.

1. My criticisms of the government handing of the virus have been scientific and (where it is available) evidence based.


Oh my.

You know (hopefully by now) that  I’ll welcome examples of where this isn’t the case.
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3877



View Profile
« Reply #2646 on: May 29, 2020, 10:33:00 PM »


It would be interesting if anyone was able to provide evidence in support of the ‘they (U.K gov) did their best on what was known at the time and were just unlucky’ narrative that seems to be a popular view in the thread.


I would be surprised if that was a widely held view here, or elsewhere.
My personal stance is to be as supportive of current policy as is sensible, & that analysis after the event will reveal the effectiveness or not, of the policies & measures employed in the UK.
I would think / hope there are more people in that camp than in the one you are suggesting.

It doesn’t seem right to wait until the end to critique, when people like Jeremy Farrar are being ignored right now:

https://twitter.com/jeremyfarrar/status/1266470822564200456?s=21
Logged
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3877



View Profile
« Reply #2647 on: May 29, 2020, 10:39:51 PM »


By any measure I’m a scientist, so your criticisms/negative comparisons don’t really stack up.

1. My criticisms of the government handing of the virus have been scientific and (where it is available) evidence based.


Oh my.

Or was it the ‘By any measure I’m...........’

That’s looking a bit cringe for sure, I barely even noticed that I’d written it like that 😊.
Logged
jakally
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2000



View Profile
« Reply #2648 on: May 29, 2020, 10:44:45 PM »


It would be interesting if anyone was able to provide evidence in support of the ‘they (U.K gov) did their best on what was known at the time and were just unlucky’ narrative that seems to be a popular view in the thread.


I would be surprised if that was a widely held view here, or elsewhere.
My personal stance is to be as supportive of current policy as is sensible, & that analysis after the event will reveal the effectiveness or not, of the policies & measures employed in the UK.
I would think / hope there are more people in that camp than in the one you are suggesting.

It doesn’t seem right to wait until the end to critique, when people like Jeremy Farrar are being ignored right now:

https://twitter.com/jeremyfarrar/status/1266470822564200456?s=21

I support wholly anyone who comes up with evidence / science supported reasoning that current policy isn't correct, or that the direction that measures & policy is heading isn't optimal.
This is an incredibly serious situation & needs to be treated as such.

I'm just not a fan of political posturing, & people who apply their pre-determined political stance to every situation & event.
I'm not specifically digging at you Kush. There are people who are much more intelligent & better informed who are taking a similar view.
Logged
nirvana
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7316



View Profile
« Reply #2649 on: May 29, 2020, 10:51:57 PM »

Nirvana is such a dipshit.

Outside


I was thinking about this post last night and I'm sure it should have been "Carpark".

Haha, totally forgot I had that nickname once. Would have been much much better :-)
Logged

sola virtus nobilitat
celtic
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18890



View Profile
« Reply #2650 on: May 29, 2020, 11:33:12 PM »

Nirvana is such a dipshit.

Outside


I was thinking about this post last night and I'm sure it should have been "Carpark".

Haha, totally forgot I had that nickname once. Would have been much much better :-)

<3
Logged

Keefy is back Smiley But for how long?
Doobs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14845


View Profile
« Reply #2651 on: May 30, 2020, 12:03:43 AM »


It would be interesting if anyone was able to provide evidence in support of the ‘they (U.K gov) did their best on what was known at the time and were just unlucky’ narrative that seems to be a popular view in the thread.

https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1266423527739215874?s=21

This lady has good credentials to make a judgement.

Do you mean like,

"& oh wow- some of the conclusions they reached were way off. 8th SAGE meeting: 'When there is sustained transmission in the UK, contact tracing will no longer be useful."

When there is sustained transmission in the UK - why do you think contact tracing would be useful?

What, to you, is the purpose of contact tracing?


"15th SAGE meeting- March 13: 'SAGE was unanimous that measures seeking to completely suppress spread of COVID-19 will cause a second peak.' 'Community testing is ending today.' 'The science suggests household isolation...of the elderly and vulnerable should be implemented soon.'"

How is this controversial?


"16th SAGE meeting: 'The objective is to avoid critical cases exceeding NHS intensive care and other respiratory support bed capacity.'"

Again - isn't this kind of what the government was suggesting was the strategy all along? There may be a suspicion that it lead to some excess deaths because of the overwhelming focus on 'protecting the NHS' but what we had at that time was doctors in Italy basically choosing who was going to live and die because their hospitals were overwhelmed so I think that links quite clearly to making decisions based on what was known at the time.


Her tone seems to be very much "OMG" but none of what she's posting seems particularly surprising, unknown or contrary to general epidemiological knowledge.

I am pretty much in agreement on the above, if she has read through the minutes and that is all she has got then it doesn't seem that an OMG thread is needed.  Some of it is already known and I have read that one from the 16th SAGE meeting a few times and struggle to see what the issue is at all.  If intensive care was ovewhelmed it was clearly going to get really shitty (and it did at times), so why wouldn't you want to try really hard to keep within that limit and how can it be way off?  Way off suggests you want to go above intensive care capacity??  

If we look at her commeny on the 7th SAGE minutes: What is controversial about "China will be UNABLE to contain the epidemic"?   They clearly didn't contain it, we know that now, so how can it have been a bad assumption?  And you can read this bit as controversial "SAGE concluded that neither travel restrictions within the UK nor prevention of mass gatherings would be effective in limiting transmission.'"  

But then you read the whole section and it says "6. SAGE discussed a range of potential measures to delay spread, based on a paper by SPI-M.
7. SAGE concluded that travel restrictions within the UK, unless draconian and fully adhered to, would not be effective in limiting transmission. They would also be ineffective if Covid-19 cases were already established in the UK.
8. There is no current evidence to suggest prevention of mass gatherings is effective in limiting transmission. Public actions in the absence of a mass gathering could have comparable impacts (e.g. watching a football match in a pub instead of a stadium as likely to spread the disease).

You could debate it, and down the line you may conclude it was a mistake, but even now I can read that and don't think wow that's mad.  They look like they have considered it, and explained why they didn't take those actions.  FWIW I am pretty sure that was all published ages ago, as it looks very familiar.

Some of it does look a bit shaky, but that thread seems "way off".

Logged

Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
Doobs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14845


View Profile
« Reply #2652 on: May 30, 2020, 12:12:57 AM »

I think govt/SAGE had faith in der models but they were all complete guesswork with far too many unreliable assumptions.

Collectively we were unable to join the dots that an herd immunity strat would overwhelm the NHS until too late.

Then saving the NHS becomes the absolute priority and it all goes to shit in care homes. It has been revealed this logical step was noted in minutes and advice but was passed over at the time.

The PPE and testing debacle is a logical conclusion of a rundown centralised healthcare policy run by a government driven by neoliberal economic policy. Efficient allocation of resources is a theoretical point on a graph and loads of people have died unnecessarily.


The models have very much held up through the passage of time, and clearly weren't all complete guesswork. 

The forecast deaths on an unrestrained UK epidemic still look very much in the right ballpark and I read the modelling assumptions at the time and didn't see anything that stood out as crazily bad.

Some of the actions they took and conclusions they made seem off, but I think that was very much Government failure and not science failure.
Logged

Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
kukushkin88
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3877



View Profile
« Reply #2653 on: May 30, 2020, 07:21:44 AM »


Good morning

Anthony Costello on the same subject as Sridhar.

https://twitter.com/globalhlthtwit/status/1266493689653866498?s=21

Solid credentials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Costello
Logged
neeko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1741


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2654 on: May 30, 2020, 07:34:42 AM »

I have copied this from Andrew Liliico (who I disagree with 90% of the time) but it sums up here we are and why we are stuck.

“This ..... illustrates a key problem at the heart of the govt's (for want of a better word) "strategy". It doesn't believe eradication is possible; it doesn't believe spread is acceptable; but CV is too infectious for behaviour that could contain it to be sustainable”
Logged

There is no problem so bad that a politician cant make it worse.

http://www.dec.org.uk
Pages: 1 ... 173 174 175 176 [177] 178 179 180 181 ... 190 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.293 seconds with 21 queries.