Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance has come to the defence of SAGE and its modelling after some torrid headlines this week following a Twitter exchange between lead modeller Professor Graham Medley and Spectator editor Fraser Nelson in which Professor Medley revealed that SAGE had not been asked to model less disastrous scenarios.
Writing in the Times, Dr. Vallance appeared directly to contradict some of the statements made by Prof. Medley, leaving observers baffled as to which of the two is correct as it is unclear how both can be. Dr. Vallance claimed that modelling of other, less severe scenarios, had been done and presented to Government, while Prof. Medley said it had not, at least by his team at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). Dr. Vallance writes:
The modellers always have to make assumptions and do so across a wide range of possibilities, some optimistic and some pessimistic. They do not, contrary to what you might have heard, only model the worst outcomes. They will make assumptions about vaccine effectiveness, they will model different levels of viral transmission, mixing patterns and different levels of disease severity. The range of assumptions modelled can be very broad; for disease severity for Omicron one model explored a range from 10% of Delta severity through to 100%. For immunity a range of assumptions on vaccine efficacy, speed of vaccine rollout and vaccine coverage in different parts of the population were explored.
This claim is backed up by the minutes of the most recent SAGE meeting, published yesterday, although it doesn’t square with what Prof. Medley told Fraser Nelson. Prof. Medley, who chairs the SAGE modelling committee, said that lower virulence scenarios don’t “add any further information” and implied his committee – SPI-M – had not been asked to provide them.
Fraser asked Prof. Medley: “I guess the question is why LSHTM did not (like JP Morgan) include a scenario of lower virulence – given that this is a very-plausible option that changes outlook massively.”
What would be the point of that? Not a snarky question – genuine to know what you think decision makers would learn from that scenario… If somebody draws a line on a graph it doesn’t add any further information. Decision-makers are generally only interested in situations where decisions have to be made… That scenario doesn’t inform anything. Decision-makers don’t have to decide if nothing happens… We generally model what we are asked to model. There is a dialogue in which policy teams discuss with the modellers what they need to inform their policy.
Fraser later observed that Prof. Medley appeared to be saying his brief was very limited and did not include less severe assumptions and outcomes.
He seemed to suggest that he has been given a very limited brief, and asked to churn out worse-case scenarios without being asked to comment on how plausible they are… Note how careful he is to stay vague on whether any of the various scenarios in the SAGE document are likely or even plausible. What happened to the original system of presenting a ‘reasonable worse-case scenario’ together with a central scenario? And what’s the point of modelling if it doesn’t say how likely any these scenarios are?
From what Professor Medley says, it’s unclear that the most-likely scenario is even being presented to ministers this time around. So how are they supposed to make good decisions? I highly doubt that Sajid Javid is only asking to churn out models that make the case for lockdown. That instruction, if it is being issued, will have come from somewhere else.
Dr. Vallance, on the other hand, says:
Often the job of scientific advice is to allow ministers to understand both a central case and the uncertainty surrounding it, what drives that uncertainty and when the uncertainty might be reduced. Speaking scientific truth to power is a difficult but necessary part of the democratic process if ministers are to be able to make an informed decision. This is what SAGE does.
If Dr. Vallance is accurately describing the advice given to ministers by SAGE, why did LSHTM not model those scenarios and estimate their likelihood? Why did the chairman of the SAGE modelling committee state that such scenarios had not been requested because they do not add anything useful to the discussion? The only explanation I can think of is that the broader range of scenarios referred to in the minutes of the SAGE meeting dated December 20th was not reflected in the SAGE memo circulated to ministers for that afternoon’s Cabinet meeting. That is, SAGE modelled less gloomy scenarios but didn’t bother to include them in the advice it gave to the Cabinet.
Dr. Vallance claims SAGE is a neutral adviser, being neither pessimistic nor optimistic and not pushing for any “dogmatic” answer or directive.
It is not the job of SAGE to take a particular policy stance or to either spread gloom or give Panglossian optimism. Ministers and the cabinet need to hear the information whether uncomfortable or encouraging. They of course need to factor it in to all the other information that provides inputs to policy decisions. SAGE does not provide dogmatic answers or directives, it provides information, advice, scenarios and helps determine possible consequences of actions. Part of the advice may contain a “reasonable worst case scenario” – data that are often seized upon.
But they are just that – a reasonable worst case scenario and one of many possible outcomes and trajectories presented to ministers for planning purposes and decision making.
But Dr. Vallance is failing to acknowledge the reason that prompted the need for his defence of SAGE modelling in the first place, which is that the chairman of his main modelling committee had stated that they had not been asked to provide alternative scenarios to ministers because it “doesn’t add any further information”. Dr. Vallance implies that others are at fault for having arbitrarily “seized upon” the reasonable worst case scenario presented to ministers, ignoring that the present controversy arose because the Government’s lead modeller said no other scenarios were modelled because they were pointless.
Dr. Vallance is also being, at best, naïve about the key role SAGE’s projections and advice have played in pushing the Government into making extreme interventions. His comments here about it being “not the job of SAGE to take a particular policy stance or to either spread gloom or give Panglossian optimism” are contradicted by his enthusiastic endorsement of boosters earlier in the same article – “Vaccine boosters are crucial” – and by what he told the BBC in October about his risk-averse approach to the pandemic.
My mantra for a long time during this (pandemic) has been… you’ve got to go sooner than you want to in terms of taking interventions. You’ve got to go harder than you want to, and you’ve got to go more geographically broad than you want to. And that is the Sage advice. And that’s what I’ve been saying. And I will say it going forward, and the prime minister knows that’s what I think. And he knows that’s what I would do in that situation.
That sounds very much like he’s offering policy recommendations to me, and recommendations of precisely the kind he’s denying SAGE makes in his Times article.
Dr. Vallance concludes with a defence of the role of science and the scientific method in the pandemic.
Science has served us extraordinarily well during this pandemic and has given us many insights as well as new diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics. Science is self-correcting, and advances by overturning previous dogma and challenging accepted truths. Encouraging a range of opinions, views and interpretation of data is all part of the process. No scientist would ever claim, in this fast-changing and unpredictable pandemic, to have a monopoly of wisdom on what happens next.
Yet two of America’s top scientists, Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, have been exposed as plotting to smear the eminent authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. Dr. Collins wrote to Dr. Fauci that the declaration was the work of “three fringe epidemiologists” and “seems to be getting a lot of attention”. He added that “there needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don’t see anything like that online yet – is it underway?” Shortly afterwards an online ‘fact check‘ appeared, courtesy of a team that included U.K. Government-linked MP Neil O’Brien.
So much for challenging accepted truths and encouraging a range of opinions.
It’s good to see the gloomy lockdown zealots on the back foot for a change and having to defend themselves. I just wish they could stick with the facts rather than spinning make-believe and changing the ‘facts’ to fit the narrative rather than vice-versa.
Stop Press: Dr. Jenny Harries, Chief Executive of the UKHSA, has also taken to the airwaves in defence of the advisers’ doomy forecasts, telling the BBC that while there’s “a glimmer of Christmas hope in the findings that we published yesterday”, it “definitely isn’t yet at the point where we could downgrade that serious threat”, referring to her earlier claim that Omicron was “probably the most significant threat we’ve had since the start of the pandemic”. For evidence she pointed to the “quite staggering” speed of spread compared to previous variants – despite her own agency publishing data this week showing that the household secondary attack rate (the proportion of household contacts an infected person infects) of Omicron is lower than the direct secondary attack rate (an almost equivalent measure) of the Alpha variant this time last year.
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.
Continuing excess deaths here in the NL also. Is it just me and my selective memory or did we not hear much about excess deaths of unknown cause years back? In the summer time too…Its certainly a head-scratcher. Unless you’re Swiss Doctor who is want to lay the blame on a summer cold-type virus and the heat before any other cause.
https://nltimes.nl/2022/09/09/excess-mortality-continues-august-scientists-struggling-research-cause
“Trevor Sinclair facing calls to be sacked after controversial Queen tweet”
A hate filled tweet for sure, and he has previous as his conviction for racially abusing a police officer while being arrested for drink driving. However if he is to be sacked it should be because he doesn’t have the sort of interesting things to say about football that would keep a listeners attention.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy though. Had Matt LeTissier said “white people shouldn’t mourn the passing of Nelson Mandela” (he wouldn’t because he’s not like that, but i’m just making the point) an equally bone-headed statement, his feet would not have touched the floor on the way out.
Also note the use of the word ‘controversial’ in the headline. That suggests that it has some merit but is not well received in some parts. There is nothing controversial about it, it is grossly offensive and has no redeeming value whatsoever. As was the comment by the US Academic that was also in the news.
Free speech by private individuals is fine, but when you are a public figure it is not unreasonable for them to be held to a higher standard. Hence why I think it is a matter for their employers, but not for the police.
I wasn’t suggesting that he shouldn’t be sacked. Rather that his performance on Talk Radio is hard to square with his continued presence there. Its another ‘job for the boy’, with very little to merit it.
LeTiss demonstrates a good working knowledge of football and a reasonable perspective about the world, along with his sceptical attitude. You are right though. Sky canned him for not liking to have to wear the BLM badge on his jacket.
“British Climate Divergence: Jacob Rees-Mogg Appointed Energy Minister, as Charles is Crowned King”
There is a pragmatic necessity, that having followed the wrong energy policy for years, we don’t compound it by trying to carry on as if it hasn’t been a total disaster. It is the classic, ‘if you find your self in a hole, stop digging’.
It might be nice if they take a look at the pricing mechanisms for renewables too. Charles will just have to suck it up and let the new Prince of Wales berate us poor people for wanting to be warm in our homes, and put food on the table instead.
“Why was Kemi Badenoch overlooked for Education Secretary?”
I’m a Kemi fan, and hoped that she would get Education too. However, I can see the logic of having Kit Malthouse in there instead. He is older and more experienced, and seems the type to have a go at the blob. Kemi could be a future Prime Minister, but not if she throws herself across Education and is stymied or defeated. Trade will allow her to hone her skills and build her capital, in what is a vital role of expanding the economy. Its a positive role that will suit her positive outlook. I hope I’m right.
My worry about the Trade brief would be that it depends very much on the Government cutting EU induced red tape and regulations. Otherwise all she can really achieve is rolling over our pre-independence agreements.
Despite making noises in the direction, so-far at least deregulation has always been at the bottom of the to-do list along with all of the other manifesto promises that they have no intention of getting around to.
Accepted that priorities change, but the PM was quite forthright about bombing the EU red tape out the system. I keep hoping that she will follow through on her pledges.
I’ll be as happy as anyone if they actually do, but those are the kinds of things they talk about but for some reason never seem to actually do.
My late father used to call them ‘The Gunners’, on account of them gunner do this or gunner do that.
I’m posting this link here as a follow on to the discussion yesterday about Common Law. If enough of us follow this path, then we can & will set-up a parallel legal system which cannot be hijacked or corrupted by those who wish to control everything, as Common Law is higher than Maritime or Statute Law. BTW ever wondered why one is given citizenship? At birth we’re registered by the state as chattel, as a ship & are therefore subject to maritime law, which is set up for trade & commerce.
https://www.commonlawcourt.com/
Cash updates:
2022 coins from the Mint with Charles III on might be quite rare? By the time the Royal Mint produce them, it will be just a couple of months to 2023. They could become commemorative editions automatically – potentially worth more than their face value. Similar gamble with notes, perhaps.
I’d be surprised if they weren’t minted months ago.
Hmm. Is the Bank of England really into actuarial gambling? They would have to be pretty secret about manufacturing in advance, based on someone’s life expectancy. I suppose they might have reduced the amount printed and minted if they thought she was unlikely to survive for so many months each year. Might even be sketching some King William designs in the background!
Or they might not even bother, as it will be digital currency in the very near future?
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/985093/the-queen-set-for-a-bumper-payout-from-offshore-wind-985093.html
Nice and tidy.
It gets worse when you learn that she has been interfering with inheritance laws….
Published documents from the National Archives reveal that the Queen on occasions used the consent procedure to privately lobby the government
Evidence suggests she used the procedure to persuade government ministers to change a 1970s transparency law in order to conceal her private wealth from the public.
Documents also show that on other occasions the monarch’s advisers demanded exclusions from proposed laws relating to road safety and land policy that appeared to affect estates, and pressed for government policy on historic sites to be altered.
Some of the bills the Queen reviewed before they were passed by parliament relate to wealth or taxation.
One of the richest families in Britain, the monarch’s property investments are exempt from inheritance tax.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
This is what we are a part of!
https://twitter.com/winteroakpress/status/1568304210826989572?s=21&t=XAhgcTRzpq1UmFx8rHEK0Q
I think my wife gave me the new BJ1 variant. It sucks.
I have an antiquated Teasmade gathering dust in the attic. Don’t know why that just sprung to mind?