Data driven

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
 Tringa 19 Feb 2021

Yesterday in an interview Boris agreed that any decision about lifting COVID19 restrictions should be driven by data - no s**t Sherlock.

If he feels the need to say that now, what have the decisions been based on since last March? Karen from Facebook, perhaps.

Dave

 The Lemming 19 Feb 2021
In reply to Tringa:

Last year Boris followed the science.

 nniff 19 Feb 2021
In reply to The Lemming:

The year before that, he followed Trump....

 Cobra_Head 19 Feb 2021
In reply to The Lemming:

> Last year Boris followed the science.


aye, followed a bit too far behind, if you ask me.

 freeflyer 19 Feb 2021
In reply to Tringa:

Dominic from Facebook.

 Mark Edwards 19 Feb 2021
In reply to Tringa:

As this comes from a politician I wonder what data? The data from focus groups indicating that a policy could have negative effects for the conservative vote?

 The Lemming 19 Feb 2021
In reply to Mark Edwards:

Would that be from the Covid Research Group?

 wintertree 19 Feb 2021
In reply to Tringa:

I am quietly hopeful going forwards.  Realists in our ranks keep trying to crush my spirit.

In reply to Tringa:

Unfortunately, nearly every Covid denial prick, seems to claim a sideline in data science. 

In reply to The Lemming:

> Would that be from the Covid Research Group?

Covid Recovery Group....

Ironically...

In reply to wintertree:

> Realists in our ranks keep trying to crush my spirit.

Sorry about that...

In reply to Tringa:

The data in the tea leaves.

 Stuart William 19 Feb 2021
In reply to The Lemming:

> Last year Boris followed the science.

Was that before or after he so graciously agreed to take responsibility for the government’s response? I do struggle to keep up with the catchphrases. 

 Blanche DuBois 20 Feb 2021
In reply to Tringa:

> Yesterday in an interview Boris agreed that any decision about lifting COVID19 restrictions should be driven by data - no s**t Sherlock.

Not familiar with the interview, but the phrase "Boris agreed that..." suggests he was asked the question if the decision was data driven, and he agreed it would be. I'm thinking that there was no response he could have given that wouldn't result in you scuttling onto social media to express your disapproval.  And now you've got me to defend Johnson - I feel slightly queezy.

> If he feels the need to say that now, what have the decisions been based on since last March? Karen from Facebook, perhaps.

Ah, it's all silly women's fault.  Good to know.

> Dave

Why are you signing off with your name? This isn't a letter.  If you're THAT keen on people knowing you're called Dave that why not stick it somewhere in your username?  Maybe change it to something like "Dave_not_Karen"?  Just a thought.

Not Karen.

 Alyson30 20 Feb 2021
In reply to Tringa:

> Yesterday in an interview Boris agreed that any decision about lifting COVID19 restrictions should be driven by data - no s**t Sherlock.

One way of saying «  I won’t take responsibility for any decision »

 fred99 20 Feb 2021
In reply to Alyson30:

> One way of saying «  I won’t take responsibility for any decision »

Has Johnson ever taken responsibility for any decision he's made ?

In reply to Tringa:

I see Starmer has thrown his lot in with the loony hard right CRG Tory MP's by calling for all children to be back in schools by 8th March despite data showing that open schools fuel the spread of infection and there being a level of infection in the community which would see schools remain closed in any country led by a sane government. 

Post edited at 22:22
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

WWCD?

In reply to cumbria mammoth:

> I see Starmer has thrown his lot in with the loony hard right CRG Tory MP's by calling for all children to be back in schools by 8th March

It is a wild and unjustified claim that to support schools opening on 8 March is "throwing one's lot in with the CRG". If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to be more reasonable than that! 

 timjones 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Tringa:

Maybe he was in one of those interviews where the need to give answers is dictated by the interviewer asking the questions?

 Offwidth 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Starmer added the clear proviso "if it is shown to be safe". Lammy pointed out on Marr that the government could have chosen to vaccinate teachers to help with that.

Also on Marr,  Hancock was in full sanctimonious mode after his defeat in court from the Good Law Project action on transparency of PPE procurement decisions. Hancock was clearly disgusted that his staff who he said were working flat out to save lives at the time were being held to account on a bureaucratic technicality. What he didn't say is the government were not that good at saving lives when it came to ignoring their own scientific advice on lockdown timing. Not that using dubious organisations for procurement risks getting poor quality PPE let alone wasting public money and the vast majority of what was procurred on those fast tracked contracts sits idle in warehousing, sometimes which the government has lost track of exactly where. When Hancock was asked why waste public money and time defending against the action if you knew you missed deadlines for such reasons he said the government had to defend it's position!!!! Marr as ever didn't pin him down properly on this extraordinary behaviour and ridiculous claims.

Three cheers for the Good Law Project 

https://goodlawproject.org/update/the-judgment-is-in/

 neilh 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

But as repeatedly pointed out by the same scientists/medics vaccinating teachers does not really help reduce hospitalisations. In that respect vaccinations for Security guards and Taxi Drivers would really help, alongside textile works in Leciester.Far far more exposed.

But people do not like to hear this.Vaccintating teachers is so much a political decision.

Post edited at 09:17
 Offwidth 22 Feb 2021
In reply to neilh:

We have been there before with this debate. I agree all essential workers who can't always safely apply social distancing should be vaccinated before anyone in their late 50s or 60s who can comfortably wait safely at home. The issue with teachers is important in particular as many in the second group vulnerable category are still not vaccinated and should have been looked at. It's a government choice to reopen schools and a lot of the politics around the subject are dishonest...the children of essential workers and the most disadvantaged are already entitled to be at school. Mentally stable early secondary age kids with supportive families at home will not suffer much in having to wait until after Easter.

The government defended the old priority lists for the vaccination order which have now been revised to take into account other risk factors, as they should have done much earlier, based on the science. Sadly this change came too late for some, as Jo Whilley exposed with her family situation. When commentators describe the overall vaccination progress as amazing they should maybe think on that.

Post edited at 10:03
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> It is a wild and unjustified claim that to support schools opening on 8 March is "throwing one's lot in with the CRG". If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to be more reasonable than that! 

This is the only issue he's been prepared to stick his neck out in criticism of the government over and it's an issue where he happens to agree with the CRG.

He sacked RLB when she disagreed with him over this issue, he wrote a secret letter to Boris Johnson offering his support in getting children back to school, Starmer even issued a demand to Johnson saying he expected all children back in school in September, "no ifs, no buts, no equivocation".

How will it be safe to open all schools to all pupils in only 2 weeks time when there will still be upwards of 250,000 people infected with Covid19 in the community and schools are known to raise the r number by 0.5 - 1?

In reply to cumbria mammoth:

Re schools: given we have a two week Easter break, I’d hang fire with schools and open fully after Easter. The extra 5 weeks would mean 15 million more jabs given. 

 Offwidth 22 Feb 2021
In reply to cumbria mammoth:

Extrapolation of ONS population infection levels means we are quite likely below 250,000 right now and the more serious estimates of increases in R from a full school opening are below 0.5.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/05/neil-ferguson-predicts-r-number-rise-if-secondary-schools-fully-reopen

I think school opening should be phased with non exam year secondary delayed after Easter, with careful monitoring, as per Indie SAGE. I think the most vulnerable teachers should be vaccinated now.

 elsewhere 22 Feb 2021
In reply to neilh:

People in groups 1-4 accounted for 90% of fatalities in first wave.
People in groups 5-9 accounted for an additional 9% of fatalities in first wave.

First wave about 60,000 fatalities, 99% in groups 1-9 so decision making for the remaining under fifties with no underlying health issues is based on the remaining 1% or 600 fatalities. Any targeting after groups 1-9 by occupation is likely to be based on a handful of cases.

(60,000 fatalities, 90% & 9% from memory)

600 cases is too little data for much targeting, even if you target based on hospitalisation it's only going to be several times more cases.

After groups 1-9 targeting might be a bit arbitrary. Maybe the best way is to continue by age with GPs nominating anybody where they have the slightest suspicion they might be a bit more vulnerable for quicker jab. Alternative is to nominate by "sociability" - teachers, tax drivers, supermarket staff, people visiting care home residents, postcode etc accepting there isn't the data to support whatever prioritisation is chosen.

Simplicity for reasons of speed might be more beneficial than subtlety.

Post edited at 14:35
 jkarran 22 Feb 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

> WWCD?

It's planting season

jk

 RobAJones 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> We have been there before with this debate. I agree all essential workers who can't always safely apply social distancing should be vaccinated before anyone in their late 50s or 60s who can comfortably wait safely at home. The issue with teachers is important in particular as many in the second group vulnerable category are still not vaccinated and should have been looked at. It's a government choice to reopen schools and a lot of the politics around the subject are dishonest...the children of essential workers and the most disadvantaged are already entitled to be at school. Mentally stable early secondary age kids with supportive families at home will not suffer much in having to wait until after Easter.

I'd add that as well as vulnerable staff, many teachers in their 50's and 60's haven't been vaccinated yet, but might be back in school in two weeks time. I'm one of the people in their 50's who can wait at home. Essential workers of a similar or slightly younger age should certainly be prioritised before me and personally  I'd have no problem if younger ones wanted it before me.

In reply to Offwidth:

> I think the most vulnerable teachers should be vaccinated now.

From the point of view of controlling the pandemic, teachers aren't really the issue; it's the pupils, coming together in classes, spreading disease amongst themselves, and then taking it home to their families (asymptomatic infection seems higher in children, IIRC). Teachers are what; one in 30 of the class? It's the rest of the class/classes (in secondary schools where form groups then split into subject groups), that are the main spread threat in schools.

Protecting teachers in more down to H&S@W; providing a safe working environment.

In reply to jkarran:

> It's planting season

Ah, yes; busy with the allotment...

 Offwidth 22 Feb 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

Sure but the vaccination order was supposedly set to protect the most vulnerable and reduce hospitalisations.


Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Loading Notifications...