NPR

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:13 pm

Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:08 pm What constitutes rampant then? Is there an official definition for rampant?

No there's not. Which is why I used a qualifier.

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:44 am

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:02 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:33 am Elimination is not a daft goal! Rather than debate this I would suggest you just read Devi Sridhar, Linda Bauld et al from UoE - they seem to know what they are talking about?

Focusing just on the death rate - whether it is 0.3% or 0.6% or 1% - is missing the point entirely. A not insignificant percentage of other folk who contract covid19 and even have just a mild infection may still develop significant health problems. These may be long lasting and will likely place a significant burden on the NHS. I watched the documentary on BBC last night with the van Tulleken twins, one of whom suffered ongoing cardiac issues post covid and is getting regular cardiac monitoring and interventions when required to manage it. Personally I ended up with a blood clot in my lungs as a result of covid and so far a 3 night stay in hospital, 1 GP consultation, I outpatient appt, 1 x-ray, 2 CT with contrast scans, 1 echocardiagram, numerous blood tests, 3 months on expensive anticoagulants, etc all as a result of covid. The idea that this is no more than a flu, has a very low death rate and only kills very old folk is at best only part of the wider picture. Folk need to waken up to the wider health ramifications of this virus. The docs I know and work with are very concerned about the wider and longer term impact of this virus and are seeing increasing range of issues across all our body organs/systems.

For me we need to drive the number of cases as low as possible and have an effective Track and Protect system working closely with local GPs and primary care and other systems i.e. education, housing, transport, etc to implement actions when required in response to local outbreaks. We need to keep the number of cases as low as possible. Up to now, and after we saw a divergence with the UK Gov approach, I think the SG strategy and how it has been implemented has been the right one and has been achieving the results. Loosening the lock down bit by bit, monitor the impact and react accordingly and when safe move onto the next loosening off stage has worked. However there will be the expected local outbreaks as in Aberdeen, and have been seen across the world, and these need to be controlled as quickly as possible. What we have in effect is a real working version of what the Blonde Bumblecunt would call (I hate this phrase!) the 'whack-a-mole' strategy. Unfortunately in England whilst this is what he said he wanted the way the have set up their systems, based around an expensive and incompetent private sector provision, they will struggle to achieve this.

It is a daft goal unless you want to accept having no economy left and deal with this virus to the exclusion of far more widespread and deadlier health issues.

I do not doubt the expertise in virology of the UoE team you quote but I most certainly won’t be looking to them on the wider economic and other associated costs that will come as a result of this policy and actions.

I firmly believe history will judge our response harshly.

As I and others have pointed out, there is very little difference between England and Scotland and their approach to this virus, not that you will accept this and are quite happy to emphasise differences that just aren’t there.

I don't think an elimination strategy and a functioning economy are mutually exclusive! In fact I think the elimination strategy being adopted by the SG is the best way of getting the economy running again. If you get the number of cases as low as possible then keeping it there is about local response to outbreaks. However for the majority of the country the low number of cases will enable the economy and society to build confidence and get back to normality with minimal social distancing requirements. It avoids any damaging major or national lock downs and avoids the NHS and associated systems being overwhelmed. It does however require a working and effective Track and Protect system in place and the lock down mechanisms ready if required. As we get better at this and understand the data around testing, cases and hospital info, then the actions required will get more focused, more targeted and more effective. We will hopefully develop our understanding of how the virus spreads and adjust accordingly. The public will begin to see the cause and effect of not following the guidance and behaviours will adapt.

To be honest if we don't do this then what is the option - a Trump style let it roam free!

On England v Scotland or indeed Wales and NI differences. I accept there was a joined up UK wide response to the initial stages of the pandemic. However the strategies began to diverge half way through and we have seen both a more careful and measured easing of lock down approach in Scotland, Wales and NI, a different communication and information strategy and more importantly a difference in the systems and mechanisms in implementation of the strategies. Since then we have seen an ongoing divergence in the number of deaths and cases between England and the other three countries.

Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:14 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:13 pm

Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:08 pm What constitutes rampant then? Is there an official definition for rampant?

No there's not. Which is why I used a qualifier.

Based on?

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:23 pm

Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:14 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:13 pm

No there's not. Which is why I used a qualifier.

Based on?

Sorry, not sure what you mean here?

Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:26 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:23 pm

Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:14 pm

Based on?

Sorry, not sure what you mean here?

You've said its not rampant but offered no basis for your definition of rampant (or lack of rampancy (is that a word? My post nightshift fuddle feels it should be).

Jock42 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:42 pm Fair enough. Apologies

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:21 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:44 am

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:02 am

It is a daft goal unless you want to accept having no economy left and deal with this virus to the exclusion of far more widespread and deadlier health issues.

I do not doubt the expertise in virology of the UoE team you quote but I most certainly won’t be looking to them on the wider economic and other associated costs that will come as a result of this policy and actions.

I firmly believe history will judge our response harshly.

As I and others have pointed out, there is very little difference between England and Scotland and their approach to this virus, not that you will accept this and are quite happy to emphasise differences that just aren’t there.

I don't think an elimination strategy and a functioning economy are mutually exclusive! In fact I think the elimination strategy being adopted by the SG is the best way of getting the economy running again. If you get the number of cases as low as possible then keeping it there is about local response to outbreaks. However for the majority of the country the low number of cases will enable the economy and society to build confidence and get back to normality with minimal social distancing requirements. It avoids any damaging major or national lock downs and avoids the NHS and associated systems being overwhelmed. It does however require a working and effective Track and Protect system in place and the lock down mechanisms ready if required. As we get better at this and understand the data around testing, cases and hospital info, then the actions required will get more focused, more targeted and more effective. We will hopefully develop our understanding of how the virus spreads and adjust accordingly. The public will begin to see the cause and effect of not following the guidance and behaviours will adapt.

To be honest if we don't do this then what is the option - a Trump style let it roam free!

On England v Scotland or indeed Wales and NI differences. I accept there was a joined up UK wide response to the initial stages of the pandemic. However the strategies began to diverge half way through and we have seen both a more careful and measured easing of lock down approach in Scotland, Wales and NI, a different communication and information strategy and more importantly a difference in the systems and mechanisms in implementation of the strategies. Since then we have seen an ongoing divergence in the number of deaths and cases between England and the other three countries.

The economy is already permanently scarred, this just going to get worse. The actions being taken are just deepening the damage. It is so interlinked that the drop in activity has knock on effects across everything and although this isn’t being felt now the level of spend on public services is going to end up being drastically cut as we will simply not have the tax base to support it.

For elimination you are looking at isolating the economy and that means a significantly smaller economy.

And Dogbert it’s not letting it run rampant, leave shite like that at the door, it’s about opening the economy as far as possible with the understanding that this virus adversely affects the elderly and those with pre existing conditions which is not the vast majority of the population and locking the majority down just hurts everyone more long term.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:44 pm I wouldn’t have locked down like we did in the first place. I would have had kids in school but would have enforced more localised lockdowns on London/ Inverclyde etc that were at the point of being overwhelmed. Large parts of the rest of the country were absolutely fine and got nowhere close to capacity.

By allowing the virus to run through the u65’s we do get much closer to the herd immunity and the community transmission drops dramatically. This is just delaying the inevitable.

I would have opened up sooner than we have and would have looked to have opened things like pools etc.

Strong companies are simply running out of cash now and will not reopen.

Sweden has seen less economic damage, quickly falling case count but yes higher mortality rate again predominantly in the elderly. The obsession with care homes is frankly ridiculous, people go into care homes to die, it’s part of life, that’s not to say we make it unpleasant or throw them to the wolves but obsessing on death rates in these places is ridiculous.

tc27 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:00 am Interesting and highly critical article from Robert McAlpine of all people:

https://sourcenews.scot/robin-mcalpine- ... uld-worry/

The evident anger towards Sturgeon/Murrell particularly notable particular as a legal firewall exists around reporting anything to do with them as a couple.

Caley_Red wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:20 am

tc27 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:00 am Interesting and highly critical article from Robert McAlpine of all people:

https://sourcenews.scot/robin-mcalpine- ... uld-worry/

The evident anger towards Sturgeon/Murrell particularly notable particular as a legal firewall exists around reporting anything to do with them as a couple.

That's a fantastic and chilling article.

Would help explain why the SNP is an entirely different party than the Salmond years despite similar cabinet appointees.

Caley_Red wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:20 am

tc27 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:00 am Interesting and highly critical article from Robert McAlpine of all people:

https://sourcenews.scot/robin-mcalpine- ... uld-worry/

The evident anger towards Sturgeon/Murrell particularly notable particular as a legal firewall exists around reporting anything to do with them as a couple.

That's a fantastic and chilling article.

Would help explain why the SNP is an entirely different party than the Salmond years despite similar cabinet appointees.

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:14 am But you ignore my point that by letting the virus run through the u65s we are in effect exposing them to risk of ongoing health issues which will affect their own health and well being, lead to significant drain on the NHS, have an impact on their ability to work and dent public confidence. Even the twat Hancock recognises this https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... 9-12028821

Letting the virus run uncontrolled over a short period of time, which is what would happen if we let the virus run wild, would really stress the NHS and public confidence. I gave you a couple of examples of what this has meant for me and the tv doc and the consequences for the NHS. I see Tom Wood, the English flanker also suffered from a blood clot in the lungs due to covid19 and is off work and on anticoagulants, so even the fittest and healthiest guys with fantastic healthcare provision are suffering! Even if it was only 1%, well below the estimates being suggested, of the under 65s impacted adversely the impact would be huge on NHS and the economy.

Some solid evidence is emerging that a significant chunk of folk who have had covid19, even those asymptomatically, are suffering real and ongoing health issues. I really doubt letting a virus with as yet unquantified and fully understood long term health care implications for the whole population is a very responsible strategy as far as both public health and economic growth is concerned! OF course we need to balance PH and economy but without PH there is no economy.

On specific points:

- any responsible Gov with an unknown and potentially fatal virus could not have done anything else but lock down the country to buy time until they knew what they were dealing with. I suspect your working with the benefit of hindsight
- we were not overwhelmed because we had a lock down
- we wouldn't have been able to implement a localised lock down strategy without the initial lock down and got cases down to a low number. We also didnt have sufficient testing capacity at that point to identify and implement a local lock down strategy.
- developing herd immunity (even if possible with a large % of pop shielded and without knowing at the time if folk developed anti bodies once having had covid19) would quickly would have overwhelmed the NHS with the small % developing severe covid19 even in the under 65s plus the significant % of them who would also have developed related serious health issues - see my earlier comments re cardiac, stroke, etc
- the lock down was exactly about delaying the inevitable - smoothing the curve - so we had a fighting chance of managing the consequences without overwhelming the NHS and social services and even possible social breakdown
- opening up sooner .... just like the US? Thats going to work out well.
- Some companies are running out of cash and we need to support them, others have done very nicely thank you so perhaps it is more about distributing the costs and profits more fairly across all the sectors? A role for Gov to fulfill
- it doesn't matter how old folk are, we have a moral and social obligation to help them live their lives as they wish and not implement a euthanasia policy by stealth because it means more folk can go to the pub! They've paid all their lives via income tax and National insurance and got us through the difficult post war issues ... we now forget that, stop obsessing about protecting our grannies and let them 'die off' but make it 'pleasant'? At this point I'm done!

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:39 am

Caley_Red wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:20 am

tc27 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:00 am Interesting and highly critical article from Robert McAlpine of all people:

https://sourcenews.scot/robin-mcalpine- ... uld-worry/

The evident anger towards Sturgeon/Murrell particularly notable particular as a legal firewall exists around reporting anything to do with them as a couple.

That's a fantastic and chilling article.

Would help explain why the SNP is an entirely different party than the Salmond years despite similar cabinet appointees.

It's also substantially caused by the other parties in Scotland being so completely and utterly incompetent. Autocracies can happen because countries just drift into them, it's not always a plan by some evil group.

Also, the whole single chamber setup can mean there's not enough scrutiny.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:17 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:39 am

Caley_Red wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:20 am

That's a fantastic and chilling article.

Would help explain why the SNP is an entirely different party than the Salmond years despite similar cabinet appointees.

It's also substantially caused by the other parties in Scotland being so completely and utterly incompetent. Autocracies can happen because countries just drift into them, it's not always a plan by some evil group.

Also, the whole single chamber setup can mean there's not enough scrutiny.

Well when you’ve got the media tearing into the tories down south the ones up here don’t stand a chance.

Sturgeon as is oft pointed out is rarely held to account by them.

I do concede the batch up here are very weak though, oh to have likes of Dewar back in the labour ranks or a Rifkind for the tories. Will see how Douglas Ross works out, the snp attack dogs are already on him though

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:59 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:17 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:39 am

It's also substantially caused by the other parties in Scotland being so completely and utterly incompetent. Autocracies can happen because countries just drift into them, it's not always a plan by some evil group.

Also, the whole single chamber setup can mean there's not enough scrutiny.

Well when you’ve got the media tearing into the tories down south the ones up here don’t stand a chance.

Sturgeon as is oft pointed out is rarely held to account by them.

I do concede the batch up here are very weak though, oh to have likes of Dewar back in the labour ranks or a Rifkind for the tories. Will see how Douglas Ross works out, the snp attack dogs are already on him though

You almost sound like you think the media shouldn't be tearing into the tories down south.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:10 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:14 am But you ignore my point that by letting the virus run through the u65s we are in effect exposing them to risk of ongoing health issues which will affect their own health and well being, lead to significant drain on the NHS, have an impact on their ability to work and dent public confidence. Even the twat Hancock recognises this https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... 9-12028821

Letting the virus run uncontrolled over a short period of time, which is what would happen if we let the virus run wild, would really stress the NHS and public confidence. I gave you a couple of examples of what this has meant for me and the tv doc and the consequences for the NHS. I see Tom Wood, the English flanker also suffered from a blood clot in the lungs due to covid19 and is off work and on anticoagulants, so even the fittest and healthiest guys with fantastic healthcare provision are suffering! Even if it was only 1%, well below the estimates being suggested, of the under 65s impacted adversely the impact would be huge on NHS and the economy.

Some solid evidence is emerging that a significant chunk of folk who have had covid19, even those asymptomatically, are suffering real and ongoing health issues. I really doubt letting a virus with as yet unquantified and fully understood long term health care implications for the whole population is a very responsible strategy as far as both public health and economic growth is concerned! OF course we need to balance PH and economy but without PH there is no economy.

On specific points:

- any responsible Gov with an unknown and potentially fatal virus could not have done anything else but lock down the country to buy time until they knew what they were dealing with. I suspect your working with the benefit of hindsight
- we were not overwhelmed because we had a lock down
- we wouldn't have been able to implement a localised lock down strategy without the initial lock down and got cases down to a low number. We also didnt have sufficient testing capacity at that point to identify and implement a local lock down strategy.
- developing herd immunity (even if possible with a large % of pop shielded and without knowing at the time if folk developed anti bodies once having had covid19) would quickly would have overwhelmed the NHS with the small % developing severe covid19 even in the under 65s plus the significant % of them who would also have developed related serious health issues - see my earlier comments re cardiac, stroke, etc
- the lock down was exactly about delaying the inevitable - smoothing the curve - so we had a fighting chance of managing the consequences without overwhelming the NHS and social services and even possible social breakdown
- opening up sooner .... just like the US? Thats going to work out well.
- Some companies are running out of cash and we need to support them, others have done very nicely thank you so perhaps it is more about distributing the costs and profits more fairly across all the sectors? A role for Gov to fulfill
- it doesn't matter how old folk are, we have a moral and social obligation to help them live their lives as they wish and not implement a euthanasia policy by stealth because it means more folk can go to the pub! They've paid all their lives via income tax and National insurance and got us through the difficult post war issues ... we now forget that, stop obsessing about protecting our grannies and let them 'die off' but make it 'pleasant'? At this point I'm done!

I’m not going through this point by point but it’s suffice to say I disagree with pretty much all of it.

It’s also clear you’re utterly blinkered by your hatred of the tories that you’re the opposite side of the bimbo coin. You never fail to drop the odd insult in.

So I basically can’t be arsed, life is far too short to smack my head off this sort of brick wall.

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:58 pm What a fucking fiasco

Shit, we might lose votes, reverse the whole thing.

so Highers just the 14 points up on last year and AH nearly 14.

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:58 pm What a fucking fiasco

Shit, we might lose votes, reverse the whole thing.

so Highers just the 14 points up on last year and AH nearly 14.

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:43 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:58 pm What a fucking fiasco

Shit, we might lose votes, reverse the whole thing.

so Highers just the 14 points up on last year and AH nearly 14.

Agreed but not sure what they could have done in current situation? Applying the historical rates of adjustments/appeals outcomes looked statistically sensible but when you get down to individual cases it is a nonsense and impacts those in the most disadvantaged groups more adversely. However it is not going to help these kids get a job given the current climate and foreseeable job market so perhaps, given the lack of overseas students coming to Scotland this year, we should take opportunity to let more go onto Uni or FE and use the opportunity to try and skill them up for the future?

Yr Alban wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:42 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:43 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:58 pm What a fucking fiasco

Shit, we might lose votes, reverse the whole thing.

so Highers just the 14 points up on last year and AH nearly 14.

Agreed but not sure what they could have done in current situation? Applying the historical rates of adjustments/appeals outcomes looked statistically sensible but when you get down to individual cases it is a nonsense and impacts those in the most disadvantaged groups more adversely. However it is not going to help these kids get a job given the current climate and foreseeable job market so perhaps, given the lack of overseas students coming to Scotland this year, we should take opportunity to let more go onto Uni or FE and use the opportunity to try and skill them up for the future?

Quite. I’d love to know what people putting the boot in right now would have done instead.

They couldn’t hold the exams, so they used the teachers’ estimates. These were way above the grades seen in recent years - so if they accepted them it would have been ‘dumbing down’. So they got the SQA to adjust them, which got results similar to previous ones, but resulted in kids from more deprived areas losing out compared to those from more affluent areas. This is possibly fair on a purely statistical basis, but hugely unfair on an individual one. So what is the magic solution that pleases everyone and disadvantages nobody? Because if there is one, then I haven’t seen anyone come out with it yet.

They have accepted they got it wrong with the adjustments and reversed the decision. Yes, this year will be an outlier for attainment. Can’t be helped. At least this way everyone is in the same boat. It can’t be the wrong decision to adjust the grades and also the wrong decision not to. Unless you have that magic solution, of course.

given the lack of overseas students coming to Scotland this year, we should take opportunity to let more go onto Uni or FE and use the opportunity to try and skill them up for the future?

Yr Alban wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:42 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:43 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:58 pm What a fucking fiasco

Shit, we might lose votes, reverse the whole thing.

so Highers just the 14 points up on last year and AH nearly 14.

Agreed but not sure what they could have done in current situation? Applying the historical rates of adjustments/appeals outcomes looked statistically sensible but when you get down to individual cases it is a nonsense and impacts those in the most disadvantaged groups more adversely. However it is not going to help these kids get a job given the current climate and foreseeable job market so perhaps, given the lack of overseas students coming to Scotland this year, we should take opportunity to let more go onto Uni or FE and use the opportunity to try and skill them up for the future?

Quite. I’d love to know what people putting the boot in right now would have done instead.

They couldn’t hold the exams, so they used the teachers’ estimates. These were way above the grades seen in recent years - so if they accepted them it would have been ‘dumbing down’. So they got the SQA to adjust them, which got results similar to previous ones, but resulted in kids from more deprived areas losing out compared to those from more affluent areas. This is possibly fair on a purely statistical basis, but hugely unfair on an individual one. So what is the magic solution that pleases everyone and disadvantages nobody? Because if there is one, then I haven’t seen anyone come out with it yet.

They have accepted they got it wrong with the adjustments and reversed the decision. Yes, this year will be an outlier for attainment. Can’t be helped. At least this way everyone is in the same boat. It can’t be the wrong decision to adjust the grades and also the wrong decision not to. Unless you have that magic solution, of course.

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:02 am

Yr Alban wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:42 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:43 pm

Agreed but not sure what they could have done in current situation? Applying the historical rates of adjustments/appeals outcomes looked statistically sensible but when you get down to individual cases it is a nonsense and impacts those in the most disadvantaged groups more adversely. However it is not going to help these kids get a job given the current climate and foreseeable job market so perhaps, given the lack of overseas students coming to Scotland this year, we should take opportunity to let more go onto Uni or FE and use the opportunity to try and skill them up for the future?

Quite. I’d love to know what people putting the boot in right now would have done instead.

They couldn’t hold the exams, so they used the teachers’ estimates. These were way above the grades seen in recent years - so if they accepted them it would have been ‘dumbing down’. So they got the SQA to adjust them, which got results similar to previous ones, but resulted in kids from more deprived areas losing out compared to those from more affluent areas. This is possibly fair on a purely statistical basis, but hugely unfair on an individual one. So what is the magic solution that pleases everyone and disadvantages nobody? Because if there is one, then I haven’t seen anyone come out with it yet.

They have accepted they got it wrong with the adjustments and reversed the decision. Yes, this year will be an outlier for attainment. Can’t be helped. At least this way everyone is in the same boat. It can’t be the wrong decision to adjust the grades and also the wrong decision not to. Unless you have that magic solution, of course.

Yeah, If it was going to be a fuck up, I'd rather it was this way round - the other one would have seen either kids getting downgraded or their qualifications being ignored.

The big question is what happens next? Is there an inherent bias in the system against kids from schools in more deprived areas? How do we stop that from re-establishing itself if so? Is this, in fact, a watershed moment for the qualification system in Scotland?

Yr Alban wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:42 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:43 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:58 pm What a fucking fiasco

Shit, we might lose votes, reverse the whole thing.

so Highers just the 14 points up on last year and AH nearly 14.

Agreed but not sure what they could have done in current situation? Applying the historical rates of adjustments/appeals outcomes looked statistically sensible but when you get down to individual cases it is a nonsense and impacts those in the most disadvantaged groups more adversely. However it is not going to help these kids get a job given the current climate and foreseeable job market so perhaps, given the lack of overseas students coming to Scotland this year, we should take opportunity to let more go onto Uni or FE and use the opportunity to try and skill them up for the future?

Quite. I’d love to know what people putting the boot in right now would have done instead.

They couldn’t hold the exams, so they used the teachers’ estimates. These were way above the grades seen in recent years - so if they accepted them it would have been ‘dumbing down’. So they got the SQA to adjust them, which got results similar to previous ones, but resulted in kids from more deprived areas losing out compared to those from more affluent areas. This is possibly fair on a purely statistical basis, but hugely unfair on an individual one. So what is the magic solution that pleases everyone and disadvantages nobody? Because if there is one, then I haven’t seen anyone come out with it yet.

They have accepted they got it wrong with the adjustments and reversed the decision. Yes, this year will be an outlier for attainment. Can’t be helped. At least this way everyone is in the same boat. It can’t be the wrong decision to adjust the grades and also the wrong decision not to. Unless you have that magic solution, of course.

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:11 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:02 am

Yr Alban wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:42 pm

Quite. I’d love to know what people putting the boot in right now would have done instead.

They couldn’t hold the exams, so they used the teachers’ estimates. These were way above the grades seen in recent years - so if they accepted them it would have been ‘dumbing down’. So they got the SQA to adjust them, which got results similar to previous ones, but resulted in kids from more deprived areas losing out compared to those from more affluent areas. This is possibly fair on a purely statistical basis, but hugely unfair on an individual one. So what is the magic solution that pleases everyone and disadvantages nobody? Because if there is one, then I haven’t seen anyone come out with it yet.

They have accepted they got it wrong with the adjustments and reversed the decision. Yes, this year will be an outlier for attainment. Can’t be helped. At least this way everyone is in the same boat. It can’t be the wrong decision to adjust the grades and also the wrong decision not to. Unless you have that magic solution, of course.

Yeah, If it was going to be a fuck up, I'd rather it was this way round - the other one would have seen either kids getting downgraded or their qualifications being ignored.

The big question is what happens next? Is there an inherent bias in the system against kids from schools in more deprived areas? How do we stop that from re-establishing itself if so? Is this, in fact, a watershed moment for the qualification system in Scotland?

I guess the other worry is that these kids will always have * against their grades, will that affect them in the future when going for jobs etc.

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:22 am

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:11 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:02 am

Yeah, If it was going to be a fuck up, I'd rather it was this way round - the other one would have seen either kids getting downgraded or their qualifications being ignored.

The big question is what happens next? Is there an inherent bias in the system against kids from schools in more deprived areas? How do we stop that from re-establishing itself if so? Is this, in fact, a watershed moment for the qualification system in Scotland?

I guess the other worry is that these kids will always have * against their grades, will that affect them in the future when going for jobs etc.

Unless it truly is a watershed moment where an inequity in the system is identified and rectified. I don't know enough about the way the system normally works - are coursework marks usually normalised by school, for example? If so an unfair bias could have been in place in the results for years.

S/Lt_Phillips wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:21 am

The SQA knew that teacher estimates were going to be inflated, because they collect this data every year. And so they knew that the predicted grades in deprived areas would be even more inflated, because this happens every year (and this was the baseline from which the downgrading was done). Swinney and the SQA were advised when they proposed their methodology for moderating the grades (months ago) that it would penalise individuals, especially talented pupils from deprived areas, so the outcry really should not have been a surprise.

S/Lt_Phillips wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:21 am The solution? What I would have done if I were the SQA would be write to the head teacher/rector of every school in Scotland well before the submission date, with the history of that school's actual results per subject (showing the trend and a measure of variability), and instruct them that the set of predicted grades would only be accepted if they were within some tolerance of their historical norm. Now, there's an argument that says there is no reason why this year's pupils aren't better on average, but there is no reason to suggest it is true either.

This way, there would have been a credible set of results, there would have been no need for any downgrading, and schools could have identified which pupils should genuinely get the top grades.

Seems like a perfectly sensible and obvious solution to me, but then I work with a lot of historical performance and benchmarking data. Also, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Instead, we have the SQA looking discredited, Swinney & the SG looking weak and pandering to their voter base, teachers looking unprofessional and the poor kids ultimately not knowing if their grades are appropriate and if they are good or not.

Here endeth the sermon.

Smutley wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:09 pm

S/Lt_Phillips wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:21 am The solution? What I would have done if I were the SQA would be write to the head teacher/rector of every school in Scotland well before the submission date, with the history of that school's actual results per subject (showing the trend and a measure of variability), and instruct them that the set of predicted grades would only be accepted if they were within some tolerance of their historical norm. Now, there's an argument that says there is no reason why this year's pupils aren't better on average, but there is no reason to suggest it is true either.

This way, there would have been a credible set of results, there would have been no need for any downgrading, and schools could have identified which pupils should genuinely get the top grades.

Seems like a perfectly sensible and obvious solution to me, but then I work with a lot of historical performance and benchmarking data. Also, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Instead, we have the SQA looking discredited, Swinney & the SG looking weak and pandering to their voter base, teachers looking unprofessional and the poor kids ultimately not knowing if their grades are appropriate and if they are good or not.

Here endeth the sermon.

Good idea, but can imagine heads gaming the heck out of/making a balls-up of that. Ours couldn't find his own arse with both hands with the lights on, it turns out.

Why not just do a global adjustment instead of weighting it by school attainment?

There's pretty good evidence (*) that kids from less advantaged backgrounds generally score lower than they should in the normal setup. By removing the weighting from the equation you might find that you'd done the right thing.

* I'm sure there's loads, but one (prospective) study by Oxbridge which found evidence of "grade inflation" in private schools compared with compo kids. Students from less well-off backgrounds turned out to do better at uni than privately educated ones with the same grades at intake. Conclusion = expensive education makes your A levels better than they would otherwise be.

robmatic wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:38 pm

S/Lt_Phillips wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:21 am

The SQA knew that teacher estimates were going to be inflated, because they collect this data every year. And so they knew that the predicted grades in deprived areas would be even more inflated, because this happens every year (and this was the baseline from which the downgrading was done). Swinney and the SQA were advised when they proposed their methodology for moderating the grades (months ago) that it would penalise individuals, especially talented pupils from deprived areas, so the outcry really should not have been a surprise.

I'm actually surprised that it's the deprived areas where the inflated grades are coming from. I went to a comprehensive school and discovered when I arrived at Edinburgh Uni that the privately educated kids were used to getting 'assistance' with their coursework and had received optimistic predicted grades. Admittedly this was a while ago.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:36 pm Kids this year are awesome, Highers are now 15% better than historical average.

Well done Class of 2020

In no way are are the usual defenders of the SNP willing to vote for them regardless, they are doing the ANC proud.

Smutley wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:22 am

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:36 pm Kids this year are awesome, Highers are now 15% better than historical average.

Well done Class of 2020

In no way are are the usual defenders of the SNP willing to vote for them regardless, they are doing the ANC proud.

This year's exams were always going to have an asterisk. They've made a right dog's breakfast of it and no mistake.

But guess what? They admitted it.

Maybe Swinney should step down, he seems like a bit of a liability. However the willingness to admit to mistakes directly to the public is exactly why I will be voting for them.

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:43 am

Smutley wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:22 am

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:36 pm Kids this year are awesome, Highers are now 15% better than historical average.

Well done Class of 2020

In no way are are the usual defenders of the SNP willing to vote for them regardless, they are doing the ANC proud.

This year's exams were always going to have an asterisk. They've made a right dog's breakfast of it and no mistake.

But guess what? They admitted it.

Maybe Swinney should step down, he seems like a bit of a liability. However the willingness to admit to mistakes directly to the public is exactly why I will be voting for them.

fucking hell.

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:43 am

Smutley wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:22 am

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:36 pm Kids this year are awesome, Highers are now 15% better than historical average.

Well done Class of 2020

In no way are are the usual defenders of the SNP willing to vote for them regardless, they are doing the ANC proud.

This year's exams were always going to have an asterisk. They've made a right dog's breakfast of it and no mistake.

But guess what? They admitted it.

Maybe Swinney should step down, he seems like a bit of a liability. However the willingness to admit to mistakes directly to the public is exactly why I will be voting for them.

fucking hell.

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:47 am

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:43 am

Smutley wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:22 am
This year's exams were always going to have an asterisk. They've made a right dog's breakfast of it and no mistake.

But guess what? They admitted it.

Maybe Swinney should step down, he seems like a bit of a liability. However the willingness to admit to mistakes directly to the public is exactly why I will be voting for them.

fucking hell.

Assuming that all politicians make mistakes, which I’m pretty sure is a valid assumption, are you saying you’d rather vote for someone who either denied they’d made a mistake when it was blatantly obvious that they had, or was completely incapable of recognising they’d made a mistake instead?