Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Dominic Cummings file

The thing is, there's probably no examples of Morgan being explicitly, openly racist, only examples of him pushing a racist agenda, furthering the cause of racists. That stuff is a lot more subtle and arguable, and tbh no-one is very interested in arguing the toss about whether something is racist or not with you, today.
 
The thing is, there's probably no examples of Morgan being explicitly, openly racist, only examples of him pushing a racist agenda, furthering the cause of racists. That stuff is a lot more subtle and arguable, and tbh no-one is very interested in arguing the toss about whether something is racist or not with you, today.

Agreed. I did already apologise for the derail.
 
I continually go back and re-read stuff from the key period in question.

I do not suggest that any perfect and complete pictures of the future were presented here. But on the key question of timing at a crucial stage, large chunks of this country got the right idea about the sense of immediacy in a way the government and SAGE utterly failed to.

I was cautious and balanced at the time. I did not immediately reject the 'we are 4 weeks behind Italy', I was skeptical about the claim and I repeatedly questioned it without declaring that they were most certainly wrong. But others on this forum and elsewhere already figured out that the reality was that we were 2 weeks behind Italy. It was not that hard to get that right. SAGE likely got it wrong because the UK data collection systems were ill prepared for this pandemic, and the modelling was imperfect. Someone probably made a trivial mistake somewhere in there, and the collective wisdom of SAGE did not spot it and correct it in a timely manner. It did not take them all that long to figure out that they got it wrong, but the consequences were still a disaster for the timing of the UK response. And there was still the tedious process of them trying to save some face and make a series of corrections to their initial timing prediction instead of just accepting the obvious reality in one go. And they were so bloody late at getting round to estimating these things in the first place, it really is painful to see how far behind the curve they were for so long.

March 10th: SAGE 14 minutes: Coronavirus (COVID-19) response, 10 March 2020



March 13th. The first correction, with some detail about why they were wrong before: SAGE 15 minutes: Coronavirus (COVID-19) response, 13 March 2020



March 16th:



March 18th:



This was an avoidable tragedy, it was quite avoidable even without the various massive benefits of hindsight. The picture I have of this period is still incomplete, eg the exact combination of data & modelling failures that caused them to get it so wrong, when people without access to the same data or models were able to figure it out more effectively.

It is still my intention to take a nice break in June, and I do not intend to convince everyone of this case I am making. And I am biased against small, closed groups of experts having too much of a monopoly over things. Collective wisdom requires a different political setup and a much broader array of participants, and a greater willingness to make rapid corrections, challenge assumptions, challenge the confines of the orthodox approach. I will not go on about this further right now, I just have a few other issues to comment on in a few other threads and then I get my break, and everyone gets a break from me :)
Well it would be interesting to pinpoint exactly when the "two weeks" thing (backed up by decent evidence) first appeared either on here or on other social media. I remember it popping up as a thing on facebook too, that people were sharing. The first time, I looked at it, and thought yeah, the numbers do look rather similar but they are still very small numbers so we should be cautious. Then I remember it reappearing a couple (?) of days later, where the case that we were following a very similar trajectory, but with a two week lag, had become pretty convincing. I assume that something similar was going on in the minds of the SAGE people - but there would be a lag between the first of them seeing the first suggestions, being cautious at first, seeing fruther info, discussing it with others at the next meeting, and then making the decision that the evidence was strong enough that they change their officially expressed position.

It might well be that they were significantly slower than the 'hive mind' to cotton on - it's certainly an interesting question. However - I think it's quite plausible that if you replaced the SAGE committees with the best informed posters on here, then a similar amount of time would have passed before the two weeks assumption became the official one.
 
Thanks. Most of those threads appear to be highlighting him actually taking down racist fuckwits and gun nuts which is quite hilarious
fuck knows why you are doing this, you cant really be this daft, can you? two seconds googling:


plus all the ones where he is being deliberately 'provocative' to wind black people up
 
Last edited:
Well it would be interesting to pinpoint exactly when the "two weeks" thing (backed up by decent evidence) first appeared either on here or on other social media. I remember it popping up as a thing on facebook too, that people were sharing. The first time, I looked at it, and thought yeah, the numbers do look rather similar but they are still very small numbers so we should be cautious. Then I remember it reappearing a couple (?) of days later, where the case that we were following a very similar trajectory, but with a two week lag, had become pretty convincing. I assume that something similar was going on in the minds of the SAGE people - but there would be a lag between the first of them seeing the first suggestions, being cautious at first, seeing fruther info, discussing it with others at the next meeting, and then making the decision that the evidence was strong enough that they change their officially expressed position.

It might well be that they were significantly slower than the 'hive mind' to cotton on - it's certainly an interesting question. However - I think it's quite plausible that if you replaced the SAGE committees with the best informed posters on here, then a similar amount of time would have passed before the two weeks assumption became the official one.

They should have been able to figure it out for themselves, even if they didnt have the time or inclination to see what other people were saying.

The nature of the situation meant that nobody had really brilliant data and evidence, so everyone had to operate with less solid info than they would have liked. But being aware of the quality of data and models and the resulting low levels of confidence in the results is an important part of doing a good job with this stuff. Whether people from here and elsewhere woudl have done a better job would have come down to how much blind faith was placed in the UK data & modelling, and whether the time was taken to see if the modelling results were a good fit with the other, simpler forms of data analysis. Something went wrong in this regard, perhaps there was bias towards the timing they would have liked and against the more alarming but accurate predictions.

As for social media, media articles etc, I dont know the precise origins of this stuff. I can find sporadic references to it by March 4th on twitter, eg:



By March 9th I can see something more substantial, with a graph:



As for U75, the first I remember clearly of it was when someone incorrectly attributed a statement that we were 11 days behind Italy to me. In fact it was Fez909 who did all that work. Here is a post from March 6th where they discuss the detail:

#3,001

There are caveats because much uncertainty was inevitable. The precautionary approach would be to go with the worst-case timing predictions of the time, and we have seen the consequences of that not happening.
 
fuck knows why you are doing this, you cant really be this daft, can you? two seconds googling:


plus all the ones where he is being deliberately 'provocative' to wind black people up

Good list.

Also, how can phone hacking not be enough to dislike the guy? He was cleared in court but only because of really strict rules (and those laws protect ordinary people too). But he wrote about phone hacking in his own biography, talked to people about phone hacking, and he was the editor while a lot of it went on, so the buck stopped with him. It also fitted with his general aggressive tactics as editor. There really isn't any doubt that he did it.

That aggression is really useful at the moment because for some reason he's decided to go after the government. And he's more plausible because he is a right-wing Tory who often says stupid mildly offensive things rather than a wet woolly liberal. He's very useful at the moment. Doesn't mean he wasn't an arsehole in the past and probably will be again in the future.
 
I thought you was having some time off? Give that keyboard a rest fella.

Its that sort of comment that tempts me not to take a break at all, but I still will.

Its not just me being off in my own world of ranting you know.....

Far more troubling to those who care about the role of scientific advice during the coronavirus crisis was the servile response from those two scientists. The comments I have received from other scientists confirm my fear that this dismal performance has not merely destroyed faith in Whitty and Vallance and threatened the government’s ability to manage this excruciatingly tricky stage of the pandemic. It has probably damaged the public image of science itself.

The chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, and chief scientific adviser, Patrick Vallance, did not speak out when asked about the Dominic Cummings affair, compromising urgent public health messaging. This makes their positions untenable.

 
Last edited:
I don't know how you managed to take offence at my comment, it wasn't meant in a bad way. Post or don't post, whatever.

I can be excessively prickly at times, a good reason in itself for me to take a nice break from all these words.

Still time for one more story that was unimpressed by Whitty and Vallance:


It is not just politicians who have disgraced themselves in defence of the Prime Minister’s aide. The UK government’s most senior scientific officers should consider their positions after their behaviour during Thursday’s daily press briefing.

Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty and Chief Scientific Adviser Professor Patrick Vallance appeared alongside the PM but were prevented by Johnson from answering a question about the Cummings scandal. It would be unfair to drag these men into what was a political row. Whitty later confirmed he and Vallance had no desire to get involved in politics.
At that moment, Whitty involved himself and Vallance in politics. It is the political narrative of Downing Street that the Cummings scandal is about politics. Others can see that as the smokescreen it is.

There is nothing “political” about asking Whitty and Vallance whether they would advise people suffering from coronavirus symptoms to, as Cummings did, pack the family into the car and set off on a 260-mile road trip. If Whitty and Vallance can’t see that they are now complicit in the operation to protect Cummings at all costs then I despair.
 
fuck knows why you are doing this, you cant really be this daft, can you? two seconds googling:


plus all the ones where he is being deliberately 'provocative' to wind black people up
AND HE BANNED ME FROM TWITTER!

(for calling him a cunt, which is factually correct.)
 
It was all just a matter of bad luck and timing for Dom.

Going over the SAGE minutes from 23rd March and noted that the London NHS ICU capacity was expected to be exceeded within 10 days
Mary Wakefield becomes unwell, and the rest we know. The Cummings family flee London in their oil-tanker fuel tank Range Rover.
 
Oh jesus, just come back to this thread. My sincere, and I mean that, apologies for raising Piers fucking Morgan. He's not really crossed my radar before this so I did a little research, found he actually shared quite a few of my opinions, had a discussion with my partner over dinner, who shares most of your views and thought I'd discuss with it you. Please. Stop.
 
Back
Top Bottom