Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
'To say that life is priceless and nothing else counts is just empty rhetoric. People say it because it is emotionally comfortable and avoids awkward dilemmas. But they don't actually believe it. We went to war in 1939 because lives were worth losing for liberty.'
100% spot on.
100% spot on.
Show More
In 1939 the individual sacraficed themselves for the greater good society.
Today we sacrifice the greater good of society for the individual.
History will judge this political class as the most cowardly in history
Today we sacrifice the greater good of society for the individual.
History will judge this political class as the most cowardly in history
You're history
like a beat up car
No good for me
like an old film star
You're history
that's what you are
na na na na
like a beat up car
No good for me
like an old film star
You're history
that's what you are
na na na na
May 3, 2020 -- 12:03PM, Racingqueen wrote:
In 1939 the individual sacraficed themselves for the greater good society.Today we sacrifice the greater good of society for the individual.History will judge this political class as the most cowardly in history
while it definitely would have judged them well with a hundreds of thousands death toll 
Sumption knows. He makes a similar point on cars and how they could have been capped at 10mph in the early days quite easily.
We tolerate some death so we can get to the shops a few minutes quicker
We tolerate some death so we can get to the shops a few minutes quicker
COVID-19 is not the greatest crisis in our history. It is not even the greatest public health crisis in our history. But the lockdown is without doubt the greatest interference with personal liberty in our history.
It is normal at this point to add 'in peacetime'. But we can forget that. Even in wartime, we never confined the entire population to their homes, 24/7, if they did not have some excuse acceptable to a Minister.
States have always tried to confine people known to be carrying dangerous infections. But we live in a new world in which, if we are ill, the State will try to cure us. From this, it is said to follow that the State can take control of our lives against our will even if we are healthy, lest we fall ill and need its services too much.
Suddenly, it is our duty to save the NHS, not the other way round.
It is now pointless to object to the imposition of the lockdown in the first place. It has happened. The question is how we get out of it.
It is a pity that the Government did not ask itself that question when, in the blind panic following the delivery of Imperial College London's Professor Neil Ferguson's statistical projections, it legislated the lockdown on the hoof in a late-night press conference.
They now find themselves trapped by their own decisions.
Ministers have formulated five tests to be satisfied before the lockdown is lifted. What is wrong with these tests is that they are all about health and only about health.
The Government has formulated them in their own interest. They think that this will allow them to avoid criticism by sheltering behind the scientists. But that is just an evasion of political responsibility. Of course it is understandable that politicians should want to shelter themselves from criticism. But there is no reason why the rest of us should help them do it.
Ending the lockdown is a political decision, not a scientific one.
It boils down to a single question. Is it worth it? That depends only partly on the science. There are also moral judgments, constitutional values and economic consequences involved. But since the Government likes its tests to come in fives, here is a five-part test which tries to address the real issues.
First, the medical issue. I am not going to argue about Professor Ferguson's projections. They have caused some discomfort among reputable professionals. They are based on some rather arbitrary assumptions. And they leave out of the account important considerations, such as the adverse health consequences of the lockdown itself or the number of people who would have died anyway from underlying clinical conditions even without Covid-19, maybe a few months later. But let us take it as a given, since it is probably true, that the lockdown will save a significant number of lives, albeit fewer than Professor Ferguson projects.
Second, we need to ask how many deaths we are prepared to accept in order to preserve other things that we value. However valuable 'saving lives' may be, it is not the only valuable thing. Some comparison is therefore unavoidable between the lives we gain and the other things we lose by a lockdown.
To say that life is priceless and nothing else counts is just empty rhetoric. People say it because it is emotionally comfortable and avoids awkward dilemmas. But they don't actually believe it.
We went to war in 1939 because lives were worth losing for liberty. We allow cars on the roads because lives are worth losing for convenience. We travel by air although pollution kills. We tut-tut about it, but we willingly do it.
Third question. What sort of life do we think we are protecting? There is more to life than the avoidance of death. Life is a drink with friends. Life is a crowded football match or a live concert. Life is a family celebration with children and grandchildren. Life is companionship, an arm around one's back, laughter or tears shared at less than two metres. These things are not just optional extras. They are life itself. They are fundamental to our humanity, to our existence as social beings. Of course death is permanent, whereas joy may be temporarily suspended. But the force of that point depends on how temporary it really is.
Viruses don't just go away. This one will never disappear unless and until there is enough exposure to it to produce collective immunity or an effective vaccine appears.
Talk of compulsorily 'shielding' (in plain English locking up) the old and vulnerable until one of those things happens is a cruel mockery of basic human values.
Fourth, there is the money question. People decry attempts to measure the mortality of Covid-19 against the economic cost of reducing it. But this too is rhetoric, and hypocritical rhetoric at that.
Money is not just for plutocrats. You and I and the editor of The Guardian and the driver of the No 9 bus and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the cashier at the supermarket all value and depend on money.
Not just in the sense that it pays our wages or pensions. Hundreds of thousands of businesses are going under. Millions are moving from jobs to universal credit. A thriving economy, of the kind that we are now throwing away, is the source of our security and the foundation of our children's future.
We would do well not to sneer at it. Poverty kills too. And when it does not kill, it maims, mentally, physically and socially.
Last but not least, we have to ask ourselves what are the limits to the things that the State can legitimately do to people against their will in a liberal democracy.
To say that there are no limits is the stuff of tyrants. Every despot who ever lived thought that he was coercing his subjects for their own good or that of society at large.
One of the more impressive observations of the Swedish epidemiologist Professor Johann Giesecke, in the interview in which he justified Sweden's refusal to lock its people down, was not about epidemiology at all.
His point was that there are some things that may work and that a totalitarian state like China can do. But a country like Sweden with its long liberal tradition cannot do them unless it wants to become like China.
We, too, have to ask ourselves what kind of relationship we want with the State. Do we really want to be the kind of society where basic freedoms are conditional on the decisions of politicians in thrall to scientists and statisticians? Where human beings are just tools of public policy?
A society in which the Government can confine most of the population without controversy is not one in which civilised people would want to live, regardless of their answers to these questions. Is it worth it?
My own answer is no. Guidance is fine. Voluntary self-isolation is fine, and strongly advisable for the more vulnerable. Most of them will do it by choice. But coercion is not fine. There is no moral or principled justification for it.
Not everyone will agree, which is fair enough. These are difficult value judgments, on which one would not expect general agreement.
The fundamental point is that these questions need to be confronted and publicly discussed by politicians without the kind of emotive evasions, propagandist slogans and generalised hype that have characterised their contribution so far.
It is normal at this point to add 'in peacetime'. But we can forget that. Even in wartime, we never confined the entire population to their homes, 24/7, if they did not have some excuse acceptable to a Minister.
States have always tried to confine people known to be carrying dangerous infections. But we live in a new world in which, if we are ill, the State will try to cure us. From this, it is said to follow that the State can take control of our lives against our will even if we are healthy, lest we fall ill and need its services too much.
Suddenly, it is our duty to save the NHS, not the other way round.
It is now pointless to object to the imposition of the lockdown in the first place. It has happened. The question is how we get out of it.
It is a pity that the Government did not ask itself that question when, in the blind panic following the delivery of Imperial College London's Professor Neil Ferguson's statistical projections, it legislated the lockdown on the hoof in a late-night press conference.
They now find themselves trapped by their own decisions.
Ministers have formulated five tests to be satisfied before the lockdown is lifted. What is wrong with these tests is that they are all about health and only about health.
The Government has formulated them in their own interest. They think that this will allow them to avoid criticism by sheltering behind the scientists. But that is just an evasion of political responsibility. Of course it is understandable that politicians should want to shelter themselves from criticism. But there is no reason why the rest of us should help them do it.
Ending the lockdown is a political decision, not a scientific one.
It boils down to a single question. Is it worth it? That depends only partly on the science. There are also moral judgments, constitutional values and economic consequences involved. But since the Government likes its tests to come in fives, here is a five-part test which tries to address the real issues.
First, the medical issue. I am not going to argue about Professor Ferguson's projections. They have caused some discomfort among reputable professionals. They are based on some rather arbitrary assumptions. And they leave out of the account important considerations, such as the adverse health consequences of the lockdown itself or the number of people who would have died anyway from underlying clinical conditions even without Covid-19, maybe a few months later. But let us take it as a given, since it is probably true, that the lockdown will save a significant number of lives, albeit fewer than Professor Ferguson projects.
Second, we need to ask how many deaths we are prepared to accept in order to preserve other things that we value. However valuable 'saving lives' may be, it is not the only valuable thing. Some comparison is therefore unavoidable between the lives we gain and the other things we lose by a lockdown.
To say that life is priceless and nothing else counts is just empty rhetoric. People say it because it is emotionally comfortable and avoids awkward dilemmas. But they don't actually believe it.
We went to war in 1939 because lives were worth losing for liberty. We allow cars on the roads because lives are worth losing for convenience. We travel by air although pollution kills. We tut-tut about it, but we willingly do it.
Third question. What sort of life do we think we are protecting? There is more to life than the avoidance of death. Life is a drink with friends. Life is a crowded football match or a live concert. Life is a family celebration with children and grandchildren. Life is companionship, an arm around one's back, laughter or tears shared at less than two metres. These things are not just optional extras. They are life itself. They are fundamental to our humanity, to our existence as social beings. Of course death is permanent, whereas joy may be temporarily suspended. But the force of that point depends on how temporary it really is.
Viruses don't just go away. This one will never disappear unless and until there is enough exposure to it to produce collective immunity or an effective vaccine appears.
Talk of compulsorily 'shielding' (in plain English locking up) the old and vulnerable until one of those things happens is a cruel mockery of basic human values.
Fourth, there is the money question. People decry attempts to measure the mortality of Covid-19 against the economic cost of reducing it. But this too is rhetoric, and hypocritical rhetoric at that.
Money is not just for plutocrats. You and I and the editor of The Guardian and the driver of the No 9 bus and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the cashier at the supermarket all value and depend on money.
Not just in the sense that it pays our wages or pensions. Hundreds of thousands of businesses are going under. Millions are moving from jobs to universal credit. A thriving economy, of the kind that we are now throwing away, is the source of our security and the foundation of our children's future.
We would do well not to sneer at it. Poverty kills too. And when it does not kill, it maims, mentally, physically and socially.
Last but not least, we have to ask ourselves what are the limits to the things that the State can legitimately do to people against their will in a liberal democracy.
To say that there are no limits is the stuff of tyrants. Every despot who ever lived thought that he was coercing his subjects for their own good or that of society at large.
One of the more impressive observations of the Swedish epidemiologist Professor Johann Giesecke, in the interview in which he justified Sweden's refusal to lock its people down, was not about epidemiology at all.
His point was that there are some things that may work and that a totalitarian state like China can do. But a country like Sweden with its long liberal tradition cannot do them unless it wants to become like China.
We, too, have to ask ourselves what kind of relationship we want with the State. Do we really want to be the kind of society where basic freedoms are conditional on the decisions of politicians in thrall to scientists and statisticians? Where human beings are just tools of public policy?
A society in which the Government can confine most of the population without controversy is not one in which civilised people would want to live, regardless of their answers to these questions. Is it worth it?
My own answer is no. Guidance is fine. Voluntary self-isolation is fine, and strongly advisable for the more vulnerable. Most of them will do it by choice. But coercion is not fine. There is no moral or principled justification for it.
Not everyone will agree, which is fair enough. These are difficult value judgments, on which one would not expect general agreement.
The fundamental point is that these questions need to be confronted and publicly discussed by politicians without the kind of emotive evasions, propagandist slogans and generalised hype that have characterised their contribution so far.
as in hitchens and the like fails to answer the obvious questions ,carry on as normal who are you going to trade with,sell goods to,where are areoplanes going to fly to,you could szay we,re not going into lockdown ,carry on and ther,d be millions of redundancies ,you cant force people to use cafes.,pubs transport etc, or are they talking for the world and should we take action,penalise countries in lockdown who don't take our areoplanes
if china had took sumptions advice and just carried on as normal,where would we be now
Personally i think there is a point beyond Sumption and the Swedish professors.
Chinas reaction to any global crisis for the foresable future will be a government controlled lockdown including a threat of violence. I dont see how that can be turned around.
If Scandinavia, UK, US follow suit then pretty much our entire species has accepted that we cannot work through any global crisis without government control and fear of law.
If humanity is to learn how to look after itself, to make large sacrifices - not because of a threat of violence, but because its the right thing to do - then we have to take the opportunities to learn that present themselves. Covid-19 is almost the perfect opportunity. I cant believe Boris squandered it in a weekend, the Swedes are possibly the last hope for an altruistic humanity. Parts of US might be able to turn it around.
Chinas reaction to any global crisis for the foresable future will be a government controlled lockdown including a threat of violence. I dont see how that can be turned around.
If Scandinavia, UK, US follow suit then pretty much our entire species has accepted that we cannot work through any global crisis without government control and fear of law.
If humanity is to learn how to look after itself, to make large sacrifices - not because of a threat of violence, but because its the right thing to do - then we have to take the opportunities to learn that present themselves. Covid-19 is almost the perfect opportunity. I cant believe Boris squandered it in a weekend, the Swedes are possibly the last hope for an altruistic humanity. Parts of US might be able to turn it around.
within days we knew public transport,crowded places were rife with the virus,we knew some of the vulnerable groups and through shielding we new we protect them,people don't seriously believe ,that people who had vulnerable groups amongst their family would just carry on regardless and bring it home,we,ve learned about obese,bame people so they,d have shielded more as it went along,to thinkpeople woiuld have just carried on burying their family members is for the birds
Maybe not large sacrifices, i meant voluntary distancing, staying at home etc. Many of the things we are doing now but on advice, not by law.
Yep.
And the government still treats us like children not even telling us their plans in case it diverts our attention from staying at home.
They should provide the facts as they know them and let individuals decide what to do.
Currently Boris and Trump are welded to a policy that was based on bad science. They cannot backtrack for political reasons. You even have Trump saying how bad Sweden is when it is doing very well and just been praised by WHO for its great response. The scientists also cannot backtrack because of fear of what admitting they got it wrong would do for their reputations and future funding.
And the government still treats us like children not even telling us their plans in case it diverts our attention from staying at home.
They should provide the facts as they know them and let individuals decide what to do.
Currently Boris and Trump are welded to a policy that was based on bad science. They cannot backtrack for political reasons. You even have Trump saying how bad Sweden is when it is doing very well and just been praised by WHO for its great response. The scientists also cannot backtrack because of fear of what admitting they got it wrong would do for their reputations and future funding.
Bad Science?
Half their policies have no basis in any science (even bad ones)
After the 2009 Swine flu outbreak the CDC stated they saw increase in cases once schools closed
The initial advice to Johnson was to keep schools open. He ignored it simply because he 5hat himself and the idea he would have to show leadership and a backbone
Half their policies have no basis in any science (even bad ones)
After the 2009 Swine flu outbreak the CDC stated they saw increase in cases once schools closed
The initial advice to Johnson was to keep schools open. He ignored it simply because he 5hat himself and the idea he would have to show leadership and a backbone
Bad science from the Imperial College study that suggested 500k would die in the UK and 2.2m in the USA. Paper since been found to be a poor piece of work with no peer review and made from obsolete computer code about flu pandemics.
As you well know, those estimates were if no mitigating actions were taken.
Now tell us the estimates if mitigating actions were implemented.
Now tell us the estimates if mitigating actions were implemented.
The scientists also cannot backtrack because of fear of what admitting they got it wrong would do for their reputations and future funding.
Scientific funding is the greatest cash racket of the last 50 years.
We get sob stories and pleading from charities to fund their "research" on all manners of causes/diseases. The return on investment is woeful.
HIV has infected 10s of millions, had billions in "research grants" thrown at it and still no vaccine.
Cancer is the same.....
Its in these "Scientists" self interest not to solve this medical issues. Just keep the cash rolling.
Offer cash on a results basis and you'd have a HIV vaccine in 2 weeks probably
Scientific funding is the greatest cash racket of the last 50 years.
We get sob stories and pleading from charities to fund their "research" on all manners of causes/diseases. The return on investment is woeful.
HIV has infected 10s of millions, had billions in "research grants" thrown at it and still no vaccine.
Cancer is the same.....
Its in these "Scientists" self interest not to solve this medical issues. Just keep the cash rolling.
Offer cash on a results basis and you'd have a HIV vaccine in 2 weeks probably
Angoose
03 May 20 20:57
Joined: 18 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 15,664 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
As you well know, those estimates were if no mitigating actions were taken.
Now tell us the estimates if mitigating actions were implemented.
^
Info in here Angoose if you want to check for yourself...
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
03 May 20 20:57
Joined: 18 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 15,664 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
As you well know, those estimates were if no mitigating actions were taken.
Now tell us the estimates if mitigating actions were implemented.
^
Info in here Angoose if you want to check for yourself...
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
The quality of the medical science in isolation is somewhat irrelevant anyway, i give the medical scientists a lot of rope, it is a good thing if they tilt 100% towards saving lives regardless of cost. If they are very wrong about their numbers then this becomes evident very quickly and gives the government a new decision.
Sumptions point stands that the government need to put the current health science into a bigger equation instead of hiding behind it.
What is wrong with these tests is that they are all about health and only about health. The Government has formulated them in their own interest. They think that this will allow them to avoid criticism by sheltering behind the scientists. But that is just an evasion of political responsibility.
Sumptions point stands that the government need to put the current health science into a bigger equation instead of hiding behind it.
What is wrong with these tests is that they are all about health and only about health. The Government has formulated them in their own interest. They think that this will allow them to avoid criticism by sheltering behind the scientists. But that is just an evasion of political responsibility.
Lord Sumption is wrong, British nationals in 1939 didn't have a choice about fighting in WW2, they were conscripted, if they absconded prison awaited.
May 4, 2020 -- 8:32AM, InsiderTrader wrote:
Angoose03 May 20 20:57Joined: 18 Jul 02| Topic/replies: 15,664 | Blogger: Angoose's blogAs you well know, those estimates were if no mitigating actions were taken.Now tell us the estimates if mitigating actions were implemented.^Info in here Angoose if you want to check for yourself...https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
I've had a copy of the report since mid March, I just want you to tell the forum what the report estimates with the measures in place.
darren_discombobulates_sports 04 May 20 09:44
Lord Sumption is wrong, British nationals in 1939 didn't have a choice about fighting in WW2, they were conscripted, if they absconded prison awaited.
Perhaps they should have had a referendum on it?
[ ] Surrender ourselves and our proud country to Hitler and his Nazi Party
[ ] Fight the Nazi scumbags and protect out women and children
Lord Sumption is wrong, British nationals in 1939 didn't have a choice about fighting in WW2, they were conscripted, if they absconded prison awaited.
Perhaps they should have had a referendum on it?
[ ] Surrender ourselves and our proud country to Hitler and his Nazi Party
[ ] Fight the Nazi scumbags and protect out women and children
May 4, 2020 -- 10:44AM, darren_discombobulates_sports wrote:
Lord Sumption is wrong, British nationals in 1939 didn't have a choice about fighting in WW2, they were conscripted, if they absconded prison awaited.
Boomers using war rhetoric when they never thought in a war again, is it
Yes its a fair point, it isnt a perfect example but within Sumptions context it still stands true, he is not wrong.
Given the choice between prison/surrender or war “We” did actually go to war in 1939 because lives were worth losing for liberty.
Given the choice between prison/surrender or war “We” did actually go to war in 1939 because lives were worth losing for liberty.
May 4, 2020 -- 11:47AM, aaronh wrote:
May 4, 2020 -- 9:44AM, darren_discombobulates_sports wrote:Lord Sumption is wrong, British nationals in 1939 didn't have a choice about fighting in WW2, they were conscripted, if they absconded prison awaited.Boomers using war rhetoric when they never thought in a war again, is it
Fought 
Angoose
04 May 20 10:00
Joined: 18 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 15,680 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
May 4, 2020 -- 7:32AM, InsiderTrader wrote:
Angoose03 May 20 20:57Joined: 18 Jul 02| Topic/replies: 15,664 | Blogger: Angoose's blogAs you well know, those estimates were if no mitigating actions were taken.Now tell us the estimates if mitigating actions were implemented.^Info in here Angoose if you want to check for yourself...https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
I've had a copy of the report since mid March, I just want you to tell the forum what the report estimates with the measures in place.
^
If you want to write the out for every situation write them out.
04 May 20 10:00
Joined: 18 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 15,680 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
May 4, 2020 -- 7:32AM, InsiderTrader wrote:
Angoose03 May 20 20:57Joined: 18 Jul 02| Topic/replies: 15,664 | Blogger: Angoose's blogAs you well know, those estimates were if no mitigating actions were taken.Now tell us the estimates if mitigating actions were implemented.^Info in here Angoose if you want to check for yourself...https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
I've had a copy of the report since mid March, I just want you to tell the forum what the report estimates with the measures in place.
^
If you want to write the out for every situation write them out.
Just give us a range for the estimates with all measures implemented for the R value of 2.4.
They are all in the paper Angoose.
The key thing is what Ferguson and Trump etc were telling the press.
They were keen to stress if we do doing 1.2m-2.2m dead in the USA, 250k to 500k in the UK.
Those are the numbers put out to scare us.
Watch the unherd interview with Ferguson. He didnt want to talk about Sweden as it makes him look more and more of an idiot by the day
The key thing is what Ferguson and Trump etc were telling the press.
They were keen to stress if we do doing 1.2m-2.2m dead in the USA, 250k to 500k in the UK.
Those are the numbers put out to scare us.
Watch the unherd interview with Ferguson. He didnt want to talk about Sweden as it makes him look more and more of an idiot by the day
I know they are there, I've known that since I first read the paper.
You remain very reluctant to post them though.
You remain very reluctant to post them though.
You are the one that wants a full list rather than the numbers put out by Ferguson/Trump in the media.
Put your posting where your mouth is.
Put your posting where your mouth is.
Why are you so happy to quote the high end figures but petrified to quote the low end figures ?
A real mystery then, YOU don't even know your reasons for choosing to quote only the high end figures.
I'd check your temperature, you may be running a fever.
I'd check your temperature, you may be running a fever.
Whack job sites don't brief against reasoned debate
Just go off at a tangent Iwe won't laugh at you, our sides already ache
Just go off at a tangent Iwe won't laugh at you, our sides already ache
Angoose
04 May 20 13:41
Joined: 18 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 15,704 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
A real mystery then, YOU don't even know your reasons for choosing to quote only the high end figures.
^
These are the numbers the media used to scare us. It was the number generally put out.
No one was interested in the lower numbers.
Not the optics Ferguson/Trump wanted.
04 May 20 13:41
Joined: 18 Jul 02
| Topic/replies: 15,704 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
A real mystery then, YOU don't even know your reasons for choosing to quote only the high end figures.
^
These are the numbers the media used to scare us. It was the number generally put out.
No one was interested in the lower numbers.
Not the optics Ferguson/Trump wanted.
No one was interested, are you sure about that sweeping statement ?
Given that a series of measures were implemented to mitigate the higher numbers to the lower numbers, I'd say that certain people were very interested in them.
Be a devil though, post them for everyone to see.
Given that a series of measures were implemented to mitigate the higher numbers to the lower numbers, I'd say that certain people were very interested in them.
Be a devil though, post them for everyone to see.
Didnt valance say under 20k would be good?
It doesnt matter though.
If they said 500k and we were getting 100 a week, then the government should change its advice.
If they predicted 20k and the morgues were overflowing then the government should change its advice.
The government isnt welded to what was said 6 weeks ago, its just welded to whatever the scientists say at any given moment which is the problem
It doesnt matter though.
If they said 500k and we were getting 100 a week, then the government should change its advice.
If they predicted 20k and the morgues were overflowing then the government should change its advice.
The government isnt welded to what was said 6 weeks ago, its just welded to whatever the scientists say at any given moment which is the problem
If you want to go through ever single permutation and write all his forecasts with different error rates go for it.
Personally I am not interested in doing so now the paper looks likely to be withdrawn and the code has been witheld meaning we cannot run the numbers for Sweden and Belarus to see his predictions there.
But if you want to argue on feel free to post and make your case to support the research.
Personally I am not interested in doing so now the paper looks likely to be withdrawn and the code has been witheld meaning we cannot run the numbers for Sweden and Belarus to see his predictions there.
But if you want to argue on feel free to post and make your case to support the research.
I am not arguing for or against the merits of the paper.
I am simply pointing out that it provided a range of scenarios that produced a range of estimates and that you are only ever interested in the scenario that produced the highest estimate.
I can but hazard a guess as to why that might be.
I am simply pointing out that it provided a range of scenarios that produced a range of estimates and that you are only ever interested in the scenario that produced the highest estimate.
I can but hazard a guess as to why that might be.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539