Yes, exactly.
That’s why they need to model ALL scenarios, not just the worst case, so that the government can use that information to make decisions that will take into account the social and economic impact as well.
…no they don’t need to listen to a random persons opinion on the internet. Just because you think they should commit time and resources modelling something that won’t materially assist with the decision making, doesn’t mean they should. Politicians are perfectly capable of looking at the worst case scenario and imagining what would happen if it wasn’t so bad. And if they want advice on the social and economic effects of changes, then it is their responsibility to commission it.
But it WILL materially assist with the decision making. That’s the whole point.
Politicians need to know the probability of various scenarios. That’s a basic principle of risk management.
They shouldn’t need to ‘imagine’ what better scenarios might look like when they have professionals to model those scenarios and their likelihood.
It’s not helpful if they only say ‘here’s the worst case’ but omit to say that there’s only a 5% chance of it, and omit to say what other scenarios are likely, and how bad or good they may be.
… not at this point. Not unless you are trying to push a very specific agenda.
If they needed this information they would have asked for it, and they would have modelled it.
Fortunately nothing has been omitted.
Actually, choosing to model only specific scenarios and not others amounts to pushing a specific agenda.
Everything except the worst case has been omitted. 
…the very specific agenda of saving lives? Sure. That is the goal here, after all. Its why they were asked for the modelling in the first place.
Who do think the agenda is for people that want the “best-case scenario” modelled? Who benefits if the government decides not to lockdown?
Why would they include something they weren’t asked for?
That isn’t SAGE’s remit (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies). They concentrate on the science and feed this to the government who take further advice from other groups on those other aspects and from that form a balanced judgement.
For those interested, you can dig into this page to see the minutes of their regular meetings. From this you can see that the possibility of lower virulence is a topic of conversation. It isn’t ignored.
What politicians need to know in order to make informed decisions is:
Epidemiologically:
-
What are all the possible scenarios and the estimated probability of each?
-
What possible actions can be taken, and what are the likely effects of each possible action in each scenario?
Socially and economically:
- What is the estimated social and economic harm of each possible action?
Somehow all this has to be balanced, based on incomplete data, guesswork, and opinion.
It’s really not easy, and I’m glad that I don’t have to do it with other people’s lives and livelihoods on the line.
…I’m unclear here, but what makes you think the government hasn’t gathered the information they need in order to make an informed decision?
Being closer to the news over here I can confirm that the UK government is getting information and projections on all such issues and is balancing that against the projections from SAGE that are of a specifically scientific nature.
Of course if the UK were simply going it alone against a tide of confirmatory evidence that shows much lower virulence then that would be a point worth remarking on.
That would suggest an interpretation that was out of whack with general understanding.
However, that isn’t the case. The cautious approach being taken is very much in line with a large number of countries who are all churning the numbers and coming to very similar conclusions.
It is entirely possible that data comes out in the next few weeks that shows those conclusions to be inaccurate or incomplete (in fact, I’ll put money on it).
It is therefore entirely possible that the cautious actions taken turn out to be unnecessary but that doesn’t mean they are the wrong thing to do.
I have clauses in my travel insurance that guard against lots of worst-case scenarios and I don’t return off my travels (remember them?) bemoaning the fact that I had no cause to claim against it.
Yes, it’s common to want a sense of the (reasonable likely) worst case scenario. For instance, the worst case financial scenario to my household is if i became 100% disabled and still needed to be supported, but my income dropped to zero. The second worst is if i drop dead.
I have purchased insurance against both these outcomes. The model of “how much money do we need?” is fairly simple, but we went through that exercise.
We don’t live every day assuming I’m about to drop dead. But we made plans for that outcome.
I didn’t say or imply that they hadn’t.
Obviously they are taking into account other things than the advice from SAGE.
Unless you are one of the scientists in the SAGE, you have no idea whether or not they’re doing this.
Actually I do, since all their reports and discussions are online.
It’s not their job to consider the social and economic implications, but it is their job to consider all epidemiological scenarios.
As it happens GW, though we have disagreed on some points I do agree that SAGE should be providing the government with some idea of the relative likelihood of all scenarios from very best to very worst.
Unless you are one of the team doing it, you don’t know.
Back to the virus, the average incubation period for omicron is only three days. For delta, it was four. That makes testing very difficult and contact tracing impossible.
What exactly are you claiming we don’t know?
The day-to-day work of the scientists who report to the advisory team leaders who then report to government.
It’s starting to feel like the immediate lead-up to a hurricane. You’ve prepared as best you can – but now you’re at the point where driving an extra nail through each window-covering plywood sheet makes no difference.
Why exactly would we want to know that?
We are interested in the different scenarios they present in their actual advisory reports to the government. We also have the minutes of meetings leading up to those reports if necessary.