Re: CV and mad panic behaviour
Reply #1544 –
Thats fair @MIO, great analysis, and like you I tend to be long winded (I blame my Greek heritage for this, as its genetic in my family and general cultural. You are often vying for the spotlight and dont relinquish it when you get it).
I paid attention to what their modelling was stating yesterday. Most of the rest of the information they discuss is very specific, detailed and usually to do with blame and finger pointing. For me, I dont find that stuff useful, but others might. In any case, I was interested specifically at the modelling.
They tend to talk like they make decisions at the top over night. Which I find interesting.
The deputy CHO (Allan?) mentioned about the probable outcomes, based on what the modelling (two types) shows. Generally they point to percentages, and I noted on one occasion, they made mention of if they implement X restrictions on this date, vs this date, the likelihood of resurgence of infection becomes X percentage. On sunday they mentioned specifically the step we took to lift curfew and restrictions of meeting in public etc etc etc and it became a different likelihood based on date, which is why they have settled on longer rather than shorter to implement the next stage.
I couldnt help and a few things struck me. 1. Why they didnt look at this last time we unlocked. 2. The modelling might actually be faulty as it likelihood is that it contains assumptions. 3. They didnt relax things earlier because the modelling showed a 41% probability of resurgence if they took the measures they have taken today 2 weeks ago. 4. Why didnt they tell us the probability of resurgence if they follow through with the 23rd as proposed? The answer might be that the data is delayed and they dont know, but given we are talking probabilities, you can hide behind that anyway. Probabilities are not actualities, and low probablities of success can still be successful as any chance is better/worse than none.
What that tells me, is if they have modelled incorrectly, that explains the lag time you are pointing at, and then you have to consider something. Interpreting those models is probably quite difficult for most people, and also requires a few assumptions to be made.
Thing is, using share price analysis, we can see that models and trends are lagging indicators.
I think that goes some way to explaining the perceived lack of action. Even if the modelling analysis was completely up to date, they would have to use current data which is already a few days old and needs them to have a really good grasp on where the surges will come from, and what likelihood of spread we are going to see. By the time the models are run, and the data is extracted, and then analysed, its likely a few days behind actuals, and therefore already out of date. Id say the same were true on the way back down which is why we are ahead of schedule on the way out of lockdown.
Thing is, you still have to assume that that is the case to be correct. If you dont assume, you end up with the exact behaviour the government has shown when choosing to implement things, and why we were both late to apply stage 3, and also applied stage 4 even though the indicators would likely have shown what you did and that it wasnt necessarily required.
What I keep hanging my hat on, is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. No one stuffs up on purpose, and that irrespective of what we all think, the lock downs are not a draconian measure solely implemented to cause everyone distress and get them into a communist regime. They are there to try and simply pull numbers down. Until the government proves thats not the case, then we have no other real choice but to share that noble aim.