Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo
I believe in Joe Hendry
- Oct 4, 2003
- 12,063
As long as people are discreet, it cannot be enforced.
Just don’t film yourself holding a mock press conference and you’ll be ok.
As long as people are discreet, it cannot be enforced.
Tricky for us (again) to be discreet with a 330 mile drive and therefore boils my blood to see people taking the piss.
Lord Frost resigns over plan B
Does this mean that the government is telling SAGE to produce a model that says 3,000 cases per day, and then saying "look, doom, gloom, SAGE are predicting 3,000 cases per day"? Good grief.meanwhile SAGE modellers are basically admitting that they are asked to create intentionally gloomy models in order to back up whatever the government has already decided to do
[tweet]1472243230213394434[/tweet]
Does this mean that the government is telling SAGE to produce a model that says 3,000 cases per day, and then saying "look, doom, gloom, SAGE are predicting 3,000 cases per day"? Good grief.
Is this genuine? Could it be a fake account?
what is utterly galling is the cry that we need to save the NHS if cases reach as high as 3000. last Jan they reached 4500 peak and around 4200 on 7 day average, we coped reasonably well with that?
it would be funny if they all got it wrong. .
Would it? Or would you just be pleased that things turned out okay?
Does this mean that the government is telling SAGE to produce a model that says 3,000 cases per day, and then saying "look, doom, gloom, SAGE are predicting 3,000 cases per day"? Good grief.
Is this genuine? Could it be a fake account?
what is utterly galling is the cry that we need to save the NHS if cases reach as high as 3000. last Jan they reached 4500 peak and around 4200 on 7 day average, we coped reasonably well with that?
Would it? Or would you just be pleased that things turned out okay?
As someone who spends a lot of time ‘modelling’ outcomes, albeit commercial / financial ones, I can safely say that they consist of mostly bollocks. The fact you have scientists doing it makes no difference.
There is always a pre-determined ‘ideal scenario’ and if the first or second attempt don’t produce such a result, you adjust the variables within conceivable margins until they do. Then, when the ideal scenario doesn’t prevail you blame one or two unforeseeable variances in the parameters as the reason for the discrepancy. Ad infinitum.
If the government tells Sage “guys, we need to let the general public how bad it could be” and then they crunch the numbers and it’s not that bad then 100% it’s back to the drawing board with half a percent or so added to the fatality rate until the scenario matches with the narrative. I think we’ve seen quite enough evidence of this in the past 18 months or so.
Caveat: I do genuinely understand why the government might wish to do this with vaguely good intentions, but at the same time I wouldn’t take every scenario spewed out there as gospel. Now less so than ever.
Does this mean that the government is telling SAGE to produce a model that says 3,000 cases per day, and then saying "look, doom, gloom, SAGE are predicting 3,000 cases per day"? Good grief.
Is this genuine? Could it be a fake account?
Forgetting all the cancer diagnoses delayed, tidal wave of mental health issues, livelihoods destroyed, kids denied part of a childhood and a real education, the abuse of kids kept out of school and away from the eyes of social workers.
Lockdowns come with a huge financial, health and emotional price.
They should only be pursued as a last resort.
We are taking two weeks here. Without adequate support it’s manageable, then everyone who wants a jab gets one, then you introduce vaccine passports. What other option is there? Do nothing and see what happens in hospitals to the underpaid over worked health service already on their knees? Yeah alright. How many cancer patients do well from that exactly?