wrighty Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Just now, Gladys said: Not in risk management. Just as important is impact, that and probability give you the risk. So something can be very high probability with minimal impact and so would equal low risk and so not worthwhile imposing risk limitations measures. On the other hand, something could be low probability but high impact, so could be higher on the risk scale and so worthy of some risk management measures. The important thing is that the impact of the measures do not outweigh the risk, and that is the crux of the covid debate. Jinx! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Nom de plume said: Does anyone think that the three Tier latest moonshot strategy or even a short, sharp full country lockdown is going to make a blind bit of difference to the transmission of the virus? My first thought: 'that is, of course, a rhetorical question'. Then I thought again and realised that the COVID-phobics here would be salivating at the prospects of further restrictions to 'defeat the virus'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dog's Dangly Bits Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 36 minutes ago, P.K. said: As I understand it probability is used as a measurement of risk. You don't understand. Which is why it is comical that you assume others don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 53 minutes ago, Gladys said: Not in risk management. Just as important is impact, that and probability give you the risk. So something can be very high probability with minimal impact and so would equal low risk and so not worthwhile imposing risk limitations measures. On the other hand, something could be low probability but high impact, so could be higher on the risk scale and so worthy of some risk management measures. The important thing is that the impact of the measures do not outweigh the risk, and that is the crux of the covid debate. The problem I see with the covid debate is the impact is highly variable according to whoever gets the virus. In some cases manageable and in other cases it's catastrophic. I would therefore not bother with treating it as anything other than catastrophic. What you would call high impact. So for me a probability target of zero is the only way to go... Unfortunately that's not possible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 12 minutes ago, P.K. said: I would therefore not bother with treating it as anything other than catastrophic. What you would call high impact. So for me a probability target of zero is the only way to go... I'm tempted to use the 'confused' emoji myself for that one! I think PK you ought to try and appreciate that some decisions have to be made on a 'public health' basis, rather than an 'individual health' basis. You can't have a zero probability target, unless you accept that you will inevitably fail. 2 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, wrighty said: I'm tempted to use the 'confused' emoji myself for that one! I think PK you ought to try and appreciate that some decisions have to be made on a 'public health' basis, rather than an 'individual health' basis. You can't have a zero probability target, unless you accept that you will inevitably fail. Hence the "Unfortunately that's not possible". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dog's Dangly Bits Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 hour ago, P.K. said: The problem I see with the covid debate is the impact is highly variable according to whoever gets the virus. In some cases manageable and in other cases it's catastrophic. I would therefore not bother with treating it as anything other than catastrophic. What you would call high impact. So for me a probability target of zero is the only way to go... Unfortunately that's not possible. That's the problem really. People like you needing to descend to the lower common denomitor/ race to the bottom mentality of the worst possible case. You sound like someone who worked in compliance. What percentage of the population are at risk? Real risk that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 hour ago, wrighty said: I'm tempted to use the 'confused' emoji myself for that one! Go for it, it will be an unslightly meltdown would be my guess. Only a few hours earlier than usual. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said: That's the problem really. People like you needing to descend to the lower common denomitor/ race to the bottom mentality of the worst possible case. You sound like someone who worked in compliance. What percentage of the population are at risk? Real risk that is. But the Government has a duty of care to ALL citizens remember! And that duty of care includes absolutely extraordinary measures which affect the whole population in order to protect a small part of it, but doesn't include any effort whatsoever to protect people from ending up out of house and home due to lost earnings. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, HeliX said: But the Government has a duty of care to ALL citizens remember! And that duty of care includes absolutely extraordinary measures which affect the whole population in order to protect a small part of it, but doesn't include any effort whatsoever to protect people from ending up out of house and home due to lost earnings. This ... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dog's Dangly Bits Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, HeliX said: But the Government has a duty of care to ALL citizens remember! And that duty of care includes absolutely extraordinary measures which affect the whole population in order to protect a small part of it, but doesn't include any effort whatsoever to protect people from ending up out of house and home due to lost earnings. It's odd isn't it? You would think it would sink in how much damage they are doing. But they just keep going. On the plus side this round of lock down nonsense will send enough large companies to the wall and the government will simply not be able to do any more lock downs. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 36 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said: That's the problem really. People like you needing to descend to the lower common denomitor/ race to the bottom mentality of the worst possible case. You sound like someone who worked in compliance. What percentage of the population are at risk? Real risk that is. The island demographic is 20% are aged 65 or over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Just an observation, the main areas that people are complaining about missing out on are the ancillary parts of life. By that I mean life style activities as opposed to the every day necessities. ie going out for meals, parties, frivolous shopping, sports, holidays and foreign travel etc. as opposed to basic shopping, home and family, home cooking, dwelling maintenance, gardening etc. Now whilst I can see the enjoyable and social aspect of the ancillary parts of life they are not necessities and surely can be put on hold for a time? Just musing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 46 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said: This ... So lobby your MHK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dog's Dangly Bits Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 minute ago, doc.fixit said: Just an observation, the main areas that people are complaining about missing out on are the ancillary parts of life. By that I mean life style activities as opposed to the every day necessities. ie going out for meals, parties, frivolous shopping, sports, holidays and foreign travel etc. as opposed to basic shopping, home and family, home cooking, dwelling maintenance, gardening etc. Now whilst I can see the enjoyable and social aspect of the ancillary parts of life they are not necessities and surely can be put on hold for a time? Just musing. Well yes and no Doc. Sure, are those things you listed "critical"?. In the short term No. But they are a major part of life. The main frustration is coming, not about missing a holiday or a night out drinking, but on the total lack of plan and the fact the entire nation needs to suffer repeatedly for a minority. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.