To think we should let scientific advisers advise?

Extensive studies and peer reviewed papers aren't needed. Just comparing forecasts with actuals to show which scientific teams are getting nearest to forecasting is sufficient. We now have 2 years of actuals to run against the forecasts and the Sage figures have been consistently alarmist and have been much criticised by their equals in the research departments of other institutions.

But since the publication of the twitter conversation between Frazer Nelson, editor of the Spectator and Professor Graham Medley, chair of the Sage modelling committee, we now why the Sage modelling is, at best mediocre, if not away with the fairies

Puzzled by the gap between 'reassuring reports from South Africa and Sage's dark forbodings' Nelson asked Medley why Sage did not include the SA experience in their own forecasts. The reply Prof. Medley gave was 'Decision-makers are generally only only interested in situations where decisions have to be made' which means, only show them the worst forecasts because those require action, they are not interested in scenarios that do not require decisisons

If you doubt that interpretation, when Nelson questioned this further Medley replied 'We generally model what we are asked to model'. So if the government asks for worst scenarios this is what they will be given even if there are alternative scenarios that are far more optimistic.

Unlike at other times we can’t wait for extensive studies and peer reviewed papers before we act: pro activity is vital if we are to get our normal lives back. As long as we learn from everything ( although, sadly, if it’s like other things I doubt if lessons will be learned…) I mean, this virus isn’t even alive. It can only exist by us allowing it to.

Look - we all acknowledge that scientists can be wrong and that predictions are difficult with a new variant and that scientists might disagree and that we are all human and that life is uncertain .............

BUT - this is the best we have got at the moment and we have to take the advice we are given, and that is endorsed by WHO and a host of other countries. We do not need full details of every study to be in the public domain and thrust before us to cause even more confusion and uncertainty for everyone. We need the conclusions and we need for Whitty to convey the balance of these clearly and unequivocally - he has done this. We may not like those conclusions but we have to bite the bullet and just get on with it all.

I think the figures reflect the uncertainty and lack of current knowledge about the Omicon variant.

I was looking at a set of projections yesterday from a very reputable team of university forecasters.. I think they were daily hospital admissions. The top figure was 6,000 and the low figure 2,000 and I looked at them and thought what a useless set of figures. Two thirds of the maximum figure was the variation between lower and upper figure. What on earth use are two figures with so much divergence between them to anyone trying to plan ahead, whether for hospital admissions or anything else.

They looked like the figures of a unit that was scared of being wrong so produced figures that would encapsulate every possible figure.

When I was involved in forecasting we always looked at the figures that came out of our calculations and then ran a reality check on them and produced figures that were of use to people.

M0nica

I do not think that, but someone has to make the final decision after all the discussion has taken place and from the ouside it looks superficially as one person makes all the decision.

I would like to know who the different teams are that are consulted, what their advice is and how it is justified. I would like to know what factors their forecasts are based on.

I have done forecasting and whenever I did I would write a report telling the person receiving the forecast, what factors I took into account, what statistical methods I used and the basis on which those forecasts were modified after the maths was done.

These should all be in the public domain.

I don't know for sure, M0nica, but I think most of the methodology is in the public domain, but the MSM just cherry pick the scariest projections.

Quote M0nica Mon 20-Dec-21 17:22:10
I do not think that, but someone has to make the final decision after all the discussion has taken place and from the ouside it looks superficially as one person makes all the decision

Yes, like him or loathe him, that is the PM. .

I keep remembering the case of Sally Clarke convicted of murdering her three children who died as a result of cot death. She was convicted because the recognised scientific expert in this field said that the chances of such a run of cot deaths was so low it must be murder

Not the but a recognised expert

As far as I remember, it was one expert witness who appeared in court in the case of Sally Clarke and his flawed evidence was taken as absolute truth.
Other scientists or doctors may have disagreed with him but were not called. The forensic pathologist for the prosecution also failed to disclose certain information.

The Royal Statistical Society later issued a statement arguing that there was no statistical basis for Meadow's claim, and expressed concern at the "misuse of statistics in the courts

I'm not sure if this was before evidence was also made available to the defence, sorry.

It is not really an example which is relevant here as Professor Whitty is the spokesperson for a multi-disciplinary committee of experts.

And the 'science' does get it wrong. Do you remember that report a few months ago which said that both the government and the scientific advisers had got things wrong.

Also, do you remember in the summer, when the scientific advisors were quoting ridiculously high numbers of cases should face masks go, and the complete opposite happened - cases dropped?

The 'science' has been very good at catastrophizing during this crisis, stoking up the panic, sometimes quite unnecessarily.

I do not think that, but someone has to make the final decision after all the discussion has taken place and from the ouside it looks superficially as one person makes all the decision.

I would like to know who the different teams are that are consulted, what their advice is and how it is justified. I would like to know what factors their forecasts are based on.

I have done forecasting and whenever I did I would write a report telling the person receiving the forecast, what factors I took into account, what statistical methods I used and the basis on which those forecasts were modified after the maths was done.

These should all be in the public domain.

Leaving it to one person to make these decisions without explaining how they chose to rely on any one set of figures is no different to relying on one expert only. Their reasons for their decisions should be in the public domain
You are sadly off beam if you think any decisions are left to one medical adviser..
Before the Cabinet and PM arrive at any decisions which then have to be passed in Parliament, there are other hoops to jump through not least Sage - in full the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) which provides scientific and technical advice to support government decision makers during emergencies.

But knowledge and experience can still be wrong. See my examples above. This why it is essential that we should be hearing from a range of different experts and know how they reach their decision so that we can then assess and comment on their conclusions.

Leaving it to one person to make these decisions without explaining how they chose to rely on any one set of figures is no different to relying on one expert only. Their reasons for their decisions should be in the public domain..

Not uncritical worship. Just respect for his knowledge and experience. These are two things that are not valued very highly at the moment, when uncritical worship is reserved for the right of the opinion of every Joe Bloggs to be held equal to the advice of someone who has studied all the research on their subject, and has many years of experience in dealing with the problem under consideration.

The job of an advisor is to advise on his/her own specialist field, to the best of his/her ability. If they don't do that honestly and transparently, then they should be sacked. The job of the PM is to consider the reports by all their advisors and pick a decision which gives due weight to each of those reports. If they can't do that honestly and transparently (and without giving undue weight to a course that rewards their supporters with unearned wealth) then they too shoud be sacked.

Well said Calistemon.

I find this absolutely uncritical worship of the current government advisor and his every word, quite frightening on both a personal and public level.

Ridiculous statement.

I'd rather listen to the science, even though they too are learning all the time about a Novel virus, than I would to a waffling politician.
And I am quite capable of evaluating the information and forming my own view of what I consider is safe to do.

"all the advice was to lay babies on their front to reduce the danger of cot death" Absolutely! certainly the emphatic advice that was handed out by health professionals when I had my children. Only to find out a couple of generations down the line when my grandchildren were born, placing babies front down against the mattress, deemed positively dangerous given research post that time.

Who was the wise man who said "when the facts change I change my mind" not John Maynard Keynes but someone else. Nevertheless, given the nature of the fluidity of a pandemic those words do resonate.

There does seem to be a constant desire to "scare the bejesus" out of the nation. I must admit I'm alarmed when I read something such as the very regrettable death of the opera singer the other day and how he went from seemingly well to death in a relatively short period, I do find such news very sobering. We can never know all the circumstances though, we read he was vaccinated, but possibly hadn't had his booster, a post mortem may show underlying health issues. Of those in hospital from the new Omricron strain there may be many variables that we are not aware of. The lack of transparency surrounding the first person to die from the Omricron variant was woeful, one could almost conclude from that there is some orchestrated desire to keep the general public in the dark by such vague announcements.

Personally I wish we could have passports, but it seems that is not being considered, far preferable than total lockdowns imo just so ruinous.

Worship?

I keep remembering the case of Sally Clarke convicted of murdering her three children who died as a result of cot death. She was convicted because the recognised scientific expert in this field said that the chances of such a run of cot deaths was so low it must be murder. He was held in such high esteem, it was a long time before anyone dare criticise him and a significant number of women were wrongly convicted of murder and sent to prison as a result.

I think this happened when all scientific advice was to lie babies on their fronts to reduce the danger of cot death. It was later found that it increased it. Again scientific advise was wrong and it took a longtime to discover this. How many children died unnecessarily?

No scientific advisors indeed no advisor of any kind is infallible, and the range of statistics coming from reputable scientific sources at odds with the governments preferred advisor is significant

I find this absolutely uncritical worship of the current government advisor and his every word, quite frightening on both a personal and public level.

Dictators dictate, politicians in the UK can pass laws but not dictate.

M0nica

An advisor's job is to advise, not dictate.

Which is what Professor Whitty does.

What MOnica said about advisers advising not dictating is true. As a solicitor I could only advise clients, I couldn’t make them follow the advice.

M0nica

An advisor's job is to advise, not dictate.

Oh dear!

An advisor's job is to advise, not dictate.

Give the scientific advisers free rein, and shut the government up except to enforce rules and provide financial support for furlough and small businesses so they can keep going till it's safer. Our future seems to be in the hands of 'One Law for You, none for Us' hypocrites. It's madness and truly dangerous.

Don't you think Thatcher would be keen to keep the economy going regardless, as the current lot want to do?
She certainly wouldn't try to do it by coming across as a bumbling fool, tho.