4 ms·

The spectator has, however, had a strong anti-lockdown skew (I avoid the word bias.) since the start which is worth bearing in mind when viewing any statistics

The spectator has, however, had a strong anti-lockdown skew (I avoid the word bias.) since the start which is worth bearing in mind when viewing any statistics that they put out. Not saying that they're wrong, but their general libertarian-right stance is worth noting.

brigandish 5y ago
> Not saying that they're wrong Then I fail to see how the rest of what you wrote is relevant to what I posted. How is it relevant?
- benjaminwootton 5y ago
  Especially when they simply post official data without commentary. The chart on the linked page "Covid hospitalisation vs Sage scenarios published 14 Sep 2021" is particularly damming. The modellers were calling our government all the names under the sun at the time of reopening, predicting almost certain doom. We then removed all restrictions and absolutely nothing happened. It seems like a UK phenomenon, but bad modelling has been at the heart of the crisis here. I'm glad we are finally asking the right questions.
  - maxehmookau 5y ago
    > bad modelling has been at the heart of the crisis here I would suggest that its probably the novel respiritory disease at the heart of the crisis here. Jokes aside, I don't see what the alternative is? If better modelling exists, we would've used it. The alternative was much worse.
    - brigandish 5y ago
      > The alternative was much worse. There are countries that didn't lock down like the UK - I live in one - and didn't fare as badly. What evidence do you have that the UK would've done worse if it had followed those examples?
      - maxehmookau 5y ago
        It's an impossible comparison to make. The UK has a population that skews towards older folks, a chronically underfunded healthcare system and we moved to lockdown later than a lot of other western european countreis. A younger population, with a better healthcare system may have fared better if we didn't lock down. I'm not a scientist, so I can't show you specific papers to back up my assumptions. Genuinely though, I would love to understand the idea that no lockdown in the UK could've done anything other than worsen the situation. We can argue forever about the type, length and timing of the lockdowns and their relative impact, but that's pointless because even the most well-informed were poorly informed in April 2020.
        brigandish 5y ago
        > It's an impossible comparison to make. And yet Nature published Comparing the responses of the UK, Sweden and Denmark to COVID-19 using counterfactual modelling in August[1]. It's not as if that's the only paper making comparisons, even if we only look in Nature. > A younger population, with a better healthcare system may have fared better if we didn't lock down. I live in Japan, are you going to tell me it's a younger population? Or perhaps you'll make some claim about the healthcare system here based on… what I could not say as you have yet to give any indication of how your notions are backed, other than by political, tribal concerns. > I'm not a scientist, so I can't show you specific papers to back up my assumptions. As I've shown, one simple search should've turned up something, as I have a whole host of results. Biases should not go unchallenged, especially not through wilful ignorance. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9 Edit: formatting

brigandish 5y ago

> Not saying that they're wrong Then I fail to see how the rest of what you wrote is relevant to what I posted. How is it relevant?

benjaminwootton 5y ago
Especially when they simply post official data without commentary. The chart on the linked page "Covid hospitalisation vs Sage scenarios published 14 Sep 2021" is particularly damming. The modellers were calling our government all the names under the sun at the time of reopening, predicting almost certain doom. We then removed all restrictions and absolutely nothing happened. It seems like a UK phenomenon, but bad modelling has been at the heart of the crisis here. I'm glad we are finally asking the right questions.
- maxehmookau 5y ago
  > bad modelling has been at the heart of the crisis here I would suggest that its probably the novel respiritory disease at the heart of the crisis here. Jokes aside, I don't see what the alternative is? If better modelling exists, we would've used it. The alternative was much worse.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > The alternative was much worse. There are countries that didn't lock down like the UK - I live in one - and didn't fare as badly. What evidence do you have that the UK would've done worse if it had followed those examples?
    - maxehmookau 5y ago
      It's an impossible comparison to make. The UK has a population that skews towards older folks, a chronically underfunded healthcare system and we moved to lockdown later than a lot of other western european countreis. A younger population, with a better healthcare system may have fared better if we didn't lock down. I'm not a scientist, so I can't show you specific papers to back up my assumptions. Genuinely though, I would love to understand the idea that no lockdown in the UK could've done anything other than worsen the situation. We can argue forever about the type, length and timing of the lockdowns and their relative impact, but that's pointless because even the most well-informed were poorly informed in April 2020.
      - brigandish 5y ago
        > It's an impossible comparison to make. And yet Nature published Comparing the responses of the UK, Sweden and Denmark to COVID-19 using counterfactual modelling in August[1]. It's not as if that's the only paper making comparisons, even if we only look in Nature. > A younger population, with a better healthcare system may have fared better if we didn't lock down. I live in Japan, are you going to tell me it's a younger population? Or perhaps you'll make some claim about the healthcare system here based on… what I could not say as you have yet to give any indication of how your notions are backed, other than by political, tribal concerns. > I'm not a scientist, so I can't show you specific papers to back up my assumptions. As I've shown, one simple search should've turned up something, as I have a whole host of results. Biases should not go unchallenged, especially not through wilful ignorance. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9 Edit: formatting