As SAGE minutes released with the Government’s approval make the case for new restrictions and even the cancellation of Christmas, Spectator Editor Fraser Nelson probed SAGE modeller Graham Medley on Twitter on why SAGE’s models were so often pessimistic and wrong.
The exchange, reproduced in full below, is illuminating because Graham says they do not include more benign scenarios because “it doesn’t add any further information” and “decision-makers are generally on [sic] only interested in situations where decisions have to be made”.
“Decision-makers don’t have to decide if nothing happens,” he argues. This is wrong, of course: not imposing restrictions because the threat doesn’t warrant it is itself a decision, a very important one.
Fraser asks: “So you exclusively model bad outcomes that require restrictions and omit just-as-likely outcomes that would not require restrictions?”
Graham replies that “we generally model what we are asked to model”.
Fraser asks: “Okay, so you were asked to model bad Omicron outcomes and make no comment as to the probability?”
Graham’s reply: “We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions.”
Ladies and gentleman: The Science.
Stop Press: Fraser has written about his Twitter exchange on the Spectator blog.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
All models say what they are told (programmed) to say. That’s the end of it. But “experts” treat models like some kind of magic, working crystal ball. It’s quite pathetic, really.
It’s the obsessive conjecturing of “what if” scenarios. But given that models can be tweaked in any desired direction to produce any desired result, it would be possible to throw together a “model” by tomorrow afternoon that warned of a scenario of raining tortoises and a mandate to don a tortoise helmet whenever one leaves the house would be issued.
The (flawed) reasoning goes something like this (by way of the tortoise analogy):
There is a small, but non-zero, chance that it may start raining tortoises tomorrow.
Therefore, let’s model a a scenario in which it rains tortoises (this would be dangerous) to get a picture of how bad the tortoise-storm is going to be, and whether tortoise helmets will be needed.
Should we model a scenario where it doesn’t rain tortoises?
Well no, because that’s a scenario where no decision has to be made.
The concept that you only model scenarios where decisions have to be made is ironic, because the purpose of modelling surely is to help one make a decision in the first place. The time to make a decision is now and that’s precisely why modelling is taking place!
For every model that predicts raining tortoises,… Read more »
It’s very simple really,
how about a Christmas quiz ?
where does most of the funding for LSHTM come from ?
what role do these peopled, both the “scientists” and the funders, play in the wider WHO pandemic preparedness planning racket ?
oh , and who paid for the the building and to set up the LSHTM ?
answers on a postcard to F. Nelson,
This is wonderful. Now we see why so few experts or authorities actually participate in real debates with skeptics. When they do, they get made to look like either fools or intentional prevaricators.
I’m still confused or maybe shocked is the right word. Are there really so many murderous bastards in the world or are they just spineless lackeys?
If this is all a conspiracy which I think it is, how is the command structure working?
“Are there really so many murderous bastards in the world or are they just spineless lackeys?”
Both.
“these scenarios are not predictions”
What the fuck are they then? Graffiti?
John Stossel sued Facebook for censoring one of his podcasts and putting the “disinformation” label on some of his claims (although these independent fact checkers never specified which claim was false).
The answer he seemed to have received is that these “fact checkers” are just sharing their opinions.
This is all right out of the novel Catch-22.
And how touching that Mr House thinks they can learn from ‘the climate’ people how to improve models against outcomes. These people are quite mad!
It’s time to stop the hand-wringing over the output of ‘scientists for hire’ like all those on the SAGE, SPI-A,B,C, NERVTAG etc committees and call it out for what it is. Puppet governments worldwide are following a global agenda. For the sake of appearances, for those who can’t handle the truth, governments need recommendations from esteemed experts to justify their decisions. Consequently, the experts’ recommendations cannot be independent and objective because:
Wow…
Another smoking gun.
How many more egregious examples of deceit, corruption and blatant incompetence do mainstream media need before they engage with this kungflu fraud?
So not imposing society destroying policy is not a decision. You could make this up as it’s entirely unsurprising.
The problem is many of the general public, who obey government mantra and dictat like a nazi stooge or because they’re scared shitless won’t read Fraser’s Twitter feed, or his blog, or this website or any other news feed such as the Telegraph. There will be no outcry or investigation or mainstream reporting. Even though one of these SAGE twats has openly admitted the methods employed to implement communist policy, we’ll be stuck with it. Lockdown will still happen in a few days or weeks and the new status quo adhered to. I suspect they could put this exposé on prime time BBC or Sky but still fuck all will change. The only option, still, is to disobey everything they implement as fiercely as possible and keep telling them to fuck off.
Indeed, though the more interesting audience for this particular snippet IMO are backbench MPs who might be starting to smell a rat.
But they can’t or won’t belatedly expose the truth, because that would reveal they were WRONG all along – and would have to share responsibility for the great amount of harm and misery that has actually occurred.
Human nature says they will not do this.
Great, albeit depressing point. It doesn’t matter if “our” side wins the few “debates” that happen – all these draconian policies will still be implemented (and widely supported).
To nip any “false narrative” in the bud, this has to happen right at the very beginning of any conversation or debate. If this does not happen, the narrative (like perception) quickly becomes reality … And this will NOT happen – because 99.9 percent of the “skeptical” “watchdog press” is completely captured and is all-in on protecting said Narratives.
Why bother with running models? Just toss a coin or for more choices throw a dice. The ultimate model would be a thousand chimpanzees pressing random keys on a calculator. This is the answer we want, adjust your software to produce it, here’s £1000000000 of public money.
Absolutely staggering admission which we’ve all known about from day one.
And which will be completely ignored by the mainstream media.
And we’ll be locked down after xmas.
I think we must have entered the Zombie Apocalypse a couple of years ago. See John Vervaek in 2013 short talk on youtube Why are zombies so big right now?
Remember Zombies are the living dead, they eat brains and just drift around and everyone has to get locked up.
So basically, they produce models to support what the Government* WANTS to happen.
And the Government* WANTS to create panic and be seen to be “doing something.”
*Government in this instance is the Globalists who are running the scamdemic.
Very revealing. Fraser Nelson has teased out what is actually happening and the answer to his last answer would be the icing on the cake, but it is obviously, “Yes”. The modellers were not asked to comment on the probability of their scenarios.
This is not basing policy on ‘the science’, this is using scientists to justify policy on the basis of a very narrow and cherry-picked view of spectrum of possibilities.
If this is how Government policy is decided for the Covid pandemic, it begs the question on how the Government informs policy on climate change…?
To steal a phrase from somewhere, instead of evidence-based policy making, it’s policy based evidence making
Or what I say: The goal of watchdog journalism is actually to protect lies, certainly not to expose them.
Crazy, models are a decision support tool NOT policy making factory. Doing nothing is always an option.
What modelling do you want?
A fucking disaster of course!
Done!
Already?
Of course! Look, here’s the.piece of paper, with the number written in it.
That’s modelling?
Yup.
Anyone can do that!
That’s the way it works, PM. You pay. We lie. By the way. When do I get my knighthood?
As per Yes, Minister, politicians equate activity with achievement.
But, in this case, they are achieving EXACTLY what they want.
SAGE reports: In our traffic accident scenario, under certain conditions – for example all drivers listening to the radio and shutting their eyes for 5 minutes while trying to get their heads around the total insanity of modellers – deaths on motorways could reach calamitous proportions. Ergo advice to HMG:- SHUT DOWN THE MOTORWAYS now!
This is right up there with the SPI B meeting minutes which talked about increasing the perceived threat to people.
It actually beggars belief that no thought is given to plausibility in the models and the assumptions which feed into them. But I still can’t work out who is really to blame. Is it SAGE modellers who appear to be saying the only model to get the results they are asked to produce? (A damning answer too). Is it the government and public health officials who then present such information without giving context of how likely a scenario is but instead seem to use it as fear propaganda to manipulate people? Or is it the media who report on such things without context? Or are we really just at the mercy of a huge amount of morons or worse?
The responses below are staggering in their stupidity.
This has FA to do with a virus.
FFS.
Another name to be added to the list.
Probability provides a way of summarising the uncertainty that comes from our laziness and ignorance – that inflicts us all to varying degree. That’s why rational thinkers adopt some level of decision theory.
In short: Decision theory = probability theory + utility theory. The insight this twitter feed offers explains a lot – we’re in deep trouble.
On a lighter note, once political leaders understand the make-up of many experts boil down to two simple components viz: ‘Ex’ – is a has been; and ‘spurt’ – is a drip under pressure, may help not to cower so readily about what they say.
If in doubt, do nowt, Johnson
🗒 Graham Medley.
Graham Medley is out of his depth and bullshitting. That is clear the moment you get to the bit where he says “We can’t predict what people are going to do over Christmas”.
Promoted above his competence.
Who said that? He did, describing his research interests.
He can read his script with a straight face. If they tell him to write X, he’ll write X. Might as well employ a bot – it would be cheaper.
Oh my god.
This explains why…and how….and who…..
I’ve modelled an appropriate response, which is pretty much a worse case scenario…
What a c*nt.
If I were the auditor asking these questions (and I have some experience in the subject), at that end point I’d probably say thank you, and then go back to the customer (the Government) to continue the questioning. The main point that, therefore, needed to be established was: who was responsible for orchestration in the project? Ie who’s ultimately calling the shots, the Government or the modellers?
My hunch at that point would be that everything revolves around the future public inquiry. Most likely the advisers want to cover their backs and say that they were just following orders, while the Government will want to cover their backs and say they were just following “The Science”.
The result being that orchestration falls between the cracks.
You don’t really believe that there will be a benign process of audit?
This really is totally unacceptable. Is it, however, an attempt by Medley to reveal what is actually happening in SAGE? Irrespective, it suggests an extraordinary absence of professional conduct and what many (including me) would suggest is incompetence. I suspect we will read more about this in the Spectator in due course.
With all due respect, this article is nigh on proof that incompetence has got sweet FA to do with this.
Bad news keeps many more people employed than good news, including Mr Medley.