dealtn wrote:XFool wrote:dealtn wrote:So were those experts (the ones you agreed with, and that weren't disagreeing with others, and thus we should have been listening to) predicting this reduction to a single daily death?
I've no idea! You'll have to ask them. But, why on earth wouldn't they? I mean, we are following a recommended path. It seems to be going as expected (and predicted) so far. What's not to like?
Exactly. What's not to like? The current outcomes are better in many respects to those (Sage) experts predictions, and the recommended path.
Is it? Where are these apparently poor Sage "predictions"? Did they actually make such exact "predictions"?
dealtn wrote: The current outcomes are remarkably similar to those of some of the predictions by other "experts", that disagreed and would ave been "ignored" by those like yourself saying we should only respect certain experts.
Are they? Where are these better "predictions"? Were their "predictions" always as accurate in the past? Can anyone really make such accurate predictions that involve such small numbers? I seem to remember SAGE usually had a range of "predictions" available to them from different models.
dealtn wrote:XFool wrote:BTW. How come you seem to assume every expert on the SAGE committee, and connected, has exactly the same opinion about everything?
I make no such assumption. Point out where I have.
Good. It sounded as if you might. Apologies if I misread you.
dealtn wrote:You are the one that appears to be selective on which experts to believe or follow. I am broadminded and am content to listen and digest a wide view of experts across a spectrum of opinions, many of whom I am sure you would consider non-consensus.
Quite!
dealtn wrote:I would be amazed if the Sage panel were clone like in their thinking. What would be the point of having such a advisory group?
Exactly.
My general point is firstly, despite what the pages of The Daily Mail or The Telegraph may have liked to suggest, SAGE was not simply "Professor Lockdown" and a few of his "chums". It had input from a range of different experts and models from several groups in the UK, consisting of differing researchers - likely with input from scientists abroad.
Secondly, whenever something noteworthy happens these days, up pop loads of: 'alternatisers' - "
They have got this all wrong"; 'conspiracists' - "
It's all been planned"; 'deniers' - "
It isn't a real pandemic"
*; 'minimizers' - "
It's no more than a bad cold" etc.
Plus, of course, the politically motivated: e.g. "
I'm a political motivated right wing journalist posing as a disinterested seeker after truth. Which is why I've set up a site called 'Lockdown Sceptics' supplied with articles by increasingly loopy 'retired' (they frequently are!)
scientists and other 'non consensus' experts..."
My simple point is: You need to know when to call "BS".
* Unbelievably, in this case, even one noted professor of 'Evidence Based Medicine'!