Judge blocks Biden's COVID-19 vaccine rule for healthcare workers across the U.S. - Reuters
The amount of political power US judges have is absolubtely crackers.
TBF the other thing that happens a lot is that administrations overreach the powers that Congress intended to give them, when that happens the courts are the only way to make them follow the law.
This doesn't happen so much in the UK because if you have the ability to form a government, you generally also have a majority to pass legislation, so you can change the law instead of trying to stretch it. But when we had a weird case where the PM was trying to do things that Parliament wouldn't vote for, as we did over Brexit, we also saw the PM overreaching (by proroguing parliament) and the courts slapping him down.
Not the worst idea in the current circumstances, since it’s differentiated from the other vaccines, and recent data looked quite good.
Fingers crossed, it seemed like an odd decision anyway. If we were going to cancel any orders it would be Novavax, they've singularly failed to launch and get their vaccine approved. We said the AZ data was messy and they were lucky to get approval so quickly, Novavax seems like a disaster of both the trial and the manufacturing.
Has NovaVax in their long and “eventful” history ever delivered anything on time and to spec?
No, scrub that.
Have they ever delivered anything?
Or are they just a vehicle for stock boosters to bilk the naive and unwary?
I’m with @LostPassword . To my eye, no western democracy will make vaccines mandatory. We are not going to send 6’ 3” armed nurses with syringes around people’s houses with battering rams. There might be fines, or tax disincentives. But that’s no different to discouraging cigarettes and alcohol with the use of financial penalties.
Austria and Greece say Hi
The policies look like they will be quite different in Austria and Greece. A €100 a month fine (as proposed in Greece) would be affordable by many. The proposed fine in Austria would be 12 times higher, which makes it completely different.
Then you have the unanswered question of whether non-payment of the fines would ultimately be an imprisonable criminal offence or not. Simply waving the word "mandatory" around is misleading.
If the early SA and Israeli data are verified - ie this variant is quite unpleasant for the vaxxed (twice as many breakthroughs) and a fucking horror show for the unvaxxed, then I reckon many countries will go a distance beyond what Greece and Austria are doing. If you want a functioning health system you need 95% of your people jabbed, and that’s that
Letting people wander around unjabbed now is arguably like letting people drive around after 3 bottles of Rioja. What do we do to those people? We put them in jail
We don’t outlaw drinking though which is the equivalent of what you are suggesting
Isn't it a bit strange it's taken for granted that Labour will come third in North Shropshire when they've come second in every election since 1997 except one? (2010). They were quite a long way ahead of the LDs in 2019 and amassed 17,000 votes in 2017.
When it hits the poor and unvaxxed - and across Africa - with its insane transmissibility….
This is now going beyond a global health emergency to a potential terminal nightmare. Vaccines seem to work, still, thank God but they will only work if everyone gets one
20-30 years ago large scale PCR testing and gene sequencing would have been scarce and certainly unaffordable to use widely. We'd be flying blind through this pandemic. And you can forget having effective vaccines in just a year. Even 10 years ago most of these things would have proven much harder to do. In a way we are very lucky this is happening now.
Even with our technological and scientific advances we are very fortunate that we didn't begin the pandemic with a Delta or Omicron.
As it is I think the death toll from this pandemic now has a fair chance of exceeding the Spanish flu.
Yes, absolutely
It’s basic maths innit? Africa has largely avoided a huge wave, no one is sure why. Youth?
This seems to be their wave, finally. It will sweep across Africa and it could kill tens of millions, putting it up there with Spanish Flu. I still hope to God I am wrong
This is literally every night now. You get some booze inside you and become incapable of any rational discussion. The site just gets swamped by your apocalyptic hysteria. Every night. I’ll be back in the morning, when you are either absent, or sober.
Jesus Christ I am entirely rational. I am lying in a hotel in Hereford simply crunching the numbers. They are inescapable
Yes, they could all be wrong, but this is a numbers-based website.
Compare it to an election. What we’re getting now is a sense of the postal votes and the first ballot boxes being opened. There is still a long way to go. But there is cause for Bufton Tufton MP for Complacenyshire to think Shit, I could lose this
UNlike an election we can still change the result! Every indicator says: maximise your jab rate. Which is what the UKG is doing, I just think they need to go further, faster
There used to be a poster on here, @eadric i think, who would make up numbers and call them “assumptions”.
I think he believed there would be 2m dead in the UK but the end of 2020
@Dura_Ace apparently she wont get the vaccine as tested on animals I am told
Do we then assume none of your cars are painted as I know for a fact all the chemicals in car paint have ld50 figures which means they have been tested on animals
People FPT are saying they'd go veggie for a while if he got jabbed.
Now, that's rewarding bad behaviour. Since the stick often works better than the carrot, I'll go the opposite way: Dura, if you don't get yourself jabbed, I'll have a delicious, mouth-watering bacon sandwich, or glistening rare steak, or a sublime chicken korma, every day until you do. I'll eat *more* meat than I normally do.
There: think of the animals you'll save.
I considered having fois gras last night but ended up with a rather nice duck egg instead. All for @Dura_Ace
Is it not irresponsible for the Labour Supporting Daily Mirror to run with this Boris story right now? So he had a works drinkies. Number ten say all guidelines were followed for such things, though it may have been a bit naughty. But more importantly, if further measures need to be introduced, which presumably being Labour the mirror will back, it needs people to follow them, which this story is undermining the likelihood of happening. Whatever argument they used to print to say it’s in national interest, It’s not in the National Interest for stories like that right now, in this difficult winter, undermining the governments virus fight no wonder other media organisations are not touching it. They should have held it back rather than undermine the country’s Covid measures shouldn’t they?
Have a good night 🙋♀️
Nah, this is fair game for a story. We have a free press.
When it hits the poor and unvaxxed - and across Africa - with its insane transmissibility….
This is now going beyond a global health emergency to a potential terminal nightmare. Vaccines seem to work, still, thank God but they will only work if everyone gets one
20-30 years ago large scale PCR testing and gene sequencing would have been scarce and certainly unaffordable to use widely. We'd be flying blind through this pandemic. And you can forget having effective vaccines in just a year. Even 10 years ago most of these things would have proven much harder to do. In a way we are very lucky this is happening now.
Even with our technological and scientific advances we are very fortunate that we didn't begin the pandemic with a Delta or Omicron.
As it is I think the death toll from this pandemic now has a fair chance of exceeding the Spanish flu.
Yes, absolutely
It’s basic maths innit? Africa has largely avoided a huge wave, no one is sure why. Youth?
This seems to be their wave, finally. It will sweep across Africa and it could kill tens of millions, putting it up there with Spanish Flu. I still hope to God I am wrong
This is literally every night now. You get some booze inside you and become incapable of any rational discussion. The site just gets swamped by your apocalyptic hysteria. Every night. I’ll be back in the morning, when you are either absent, or sober.
Jesus Christ I am entirely rational. I am lying in a hotel in Hereford simply crunching the numbers. They are inescapable
Yes, they could all be wrong, but this is a numbers-based website.
Compare it to an election. What we’re getting now is a sense of the postal votes and the first ballot boxes being opened. There is still a long way to go. But there is cause for Bufton Tufton MP for Complacenyshire to think Shit, I could lose this
UNlike an election we can still change the result! Every indicator says: maximise your jab rate. Which is what the UKG is doing, I just think they need to go further, faster
There used to be a poster on here, @eadric i think, who would make up numbers and call them “assumptions”.
I think he believed there would be 2m dead in the UK but the end of 2020
I wonder what happened to him?
I'll have you know that over 200 million have died in the United Kingdom over the last... ooohhh... 5,000 years. So, if anything, @Leon underegged it.
When it hits the poor and unvaxxed - and across Africa - with its insane transmissibility….
This is now going beyond a global health emergency to a potential terminal nightmare. Vaccines seem to work, still, thank God but they will only work if everyone gets one
20-30 years ago large scale PCR testing and gene sequencing would have been scarce and certainly unaffordable to use widely. We'd be flying blind through this pandemic. And you can forget having effective vaccines in just a year. Even 10 years ago most of these things would have proven much harder to do. In a way we are very lucky this is happening now.
Even with our technological and scientific advances we are very fortunate that we didn't begin the pandemic with a Delta or Omicron.
As it is I think the death toll from this pandemic now has a fair chance of exceeding the Spanish flu.
Yes, absolutely
It’s basic maths innit? Africa has largely avoided a huge wave, no one is sure why. Youth?
This seems to be their wave, finally. It will sweep across Africa and it could kill tens of millions, putting it up there with Spanish Flu. I still hope to God I am wrong
This is literally every night now. You get some booze inside you and become incapable of any rational discussion. The site just gets swamped by your apocalyptic hysteria. Every night. I’ll be back in the morning, when you are either absent, or sober.
Jesus Christ I am entirely rational. I am lying in a hotel in Hereford simply crunching the numbers. They are inescapable
Yes, they could all be wrong, but this is a numbers-based website.
Compare it to an election. What we’re getting now is a sense of the postal votes and the first ballot boxes being opened. There is still a long way to go. But there is cause for Bufton Tufton MP for Complacenyshire to think Shit, I could lose this
UNlike an election we can still change the result! Every indicator says: maximise your jab rate. Which is what the UKG is doing, I just think they need to go further, faster
There used to be a poster on here, @eadric i think, who would make up numbers and call them “assumptions”.
I think he believed there would be 2m dead in the UK but the end of 2020
I wonder what happened to him?
I'll have you know that over 200 million have died in the United Kingdom over the last... ooohhh... 5,000 years. So, if anything, @Leon underegged it.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
The experts, with notable (and loud) exceptions like some of these iSAGE extremists (exhibit A: Professor Social-distancing-forever Michie) aren't really like this - although I do concur that the rush to gag everybody at the first sign of trouble is an over-reaction.
Ultimately it's down to health and scientific advisers to give their perspective on what they think would help from the point of view of disease control - but for politicians to balance this against wider economic and social questions. The buck for the over-reaction ultimately stops with the Prime Minister - although, setting aside your opinion of the current incumbent, one has to have a certain amount of sympathy for our leaders in all of this. They are bound to upset a large chunk of opinion regardless of what they do - and especially if they choose not to follow whichever expert opinion any given media outlet has decided it would like to back.
The main headline on the website of one Opposition-friendly newspaper after the press conference yesterday afternoon was, effectively, "Boris Johnson ignores expert advice." The expert being, of course, Dr Harries, who was the particular expert whose opinion was obviously considered more valid than that of anybody else in the world that day, because the Government had rejected it (whereas both the Labour Party and said publication itself are mad keen on pushing as many miserable impositions on people's lives as possible.) You can guarantee that, if the Government had decided to bring in masks everywhere and working from home, its opponents would have banked the concession, found a far more extreme opinion to emphasise, and moved on to demanding a full lockdown by the end of the week.
All of that having been said, I can see where the frustration of people who have opinions like this originates from, because we do indeed need to learn not to keep having a massive panic every time this wretched virus mutates, or else we shall be stuck permanently in this nightmare situation where we never know which freedoms we are to be permitted to retain and which will be taken away from one day to the next. "Living with the virus" does not mean nailing a bloody gag to everybody's face every single time a virologist somewhere has an attack of the collywobbles, from now until the heat death of the universe. At some point, and soon, this has to stop.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
I doubt it would make much difference to be honest. People know he’s not on the most cautious end of the spectrum.
OT, Monbiot is bracingly and completely correct this morning that the extra amendments bolted on to the policing bill, and completely missed by the media, as well as parts of the original bill itself, are a threat to all of us and our basic democratic rights.
Most concerning of all, among many concerns, is the open door to making any noisy, rather than violent, protest - and even helping to publicise such a protest online, by retweeting it, for instance - an arrestable offence.
Very concerning stuff, and as so often in the last two decades, the British media, claiming to be fearless, is asleep at the wheel .
People here should write this part of the leaked minutes on a Post-It and stick it to their device: "Any significant reduction in protection against infection could still result in a very large wave of infections. This would in turn lead to a potentially high number of hospitalisations even with protection against severe disease being less affected."
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
What this pandemic has shown is that far too many scientists do have an axe to grind. From the infamous Michie (who admittedly as a child psychologist working in academia might be better characterised as a pseudo-scientist) who mused about imposing communism, to Christina Pagel who seems avid for media publicity, through to the founder of iSage David King who just likes feeling important as he expands its remit, too many have undermined their own credibility by making ridiculous public statements to push an agenda that have subsequently been shown to be false, and giving advice that was utterly crazy (no border quarantine) for reasons that would defy rational explanation (if it weren't for the fact that wealthy people in low pressure jobs like foreign holidays).
Scientific advisers, as opposed to scientific researchers, have had a bloody awful pandemic.
The panicking and the minimisers at either end of the debate may have the most passionate arguments, but for once the government response is about right and on time. A bit of caution on interactions, a bit of action on vaccines and wait and see until we know more is fine.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Scientific advisers, as opposed to scientific researchers, have had a bloody awful pandemic.
It’s been a disaster for clear and effective communication about science to the general public, which is all the more tragic given the unprecedented scientific success of developing multiple vaccines so quickly.
The panicking and the minimisers at either end of the debate may have the most passionate arguments, but for once the government response is about right and on time. A bit of caution on interactions, a bit of action on vaccines and wait and see until we know more is fine.
Agree about the two ends of the spectrum, but caution is surely the wiser option.
As I posted upthread scaling down our family's celebrations will result in disappointment for several, but which is the wiser course?
OT, Monbiot is bracingly and completely correct this morning that the extra amendments bolted on to the policing bill, and completely missed by the media, as well as parts of the original bill itself, are a threat to all of us and our basic democratic rights.
Most concerning of all, among many concerns, is the open door to making any noisy, rather than violent, protest - and even helping to publicise such a protest online, by retweeting it, for instance - an arrestable offence.
Very concerning stuff, and as so often in the last two decades, the British media, claiming to be fearless, is asleep at the wheel .
The UK media is alternately useless or dangerous. The quality of analysis can be seen by who have been the best paid OpEd writers: such Augustan figures as Gove and Johnson, and various other "luminaries" as Heffer or Hitchens. Meanwhile both print and broadcast media are sloppy with facts and critical details. The feral frenzy on the doings of the latest ingenue is matched by the indifference, ignorance or contempt demonstrated to most serious subjects.
The panicking and the minimisers at either end of the debate may have the most passionate arguments, but for once the government response is about right and on time. A bit of caution on interactions, a bit of action on vaccines and wait and see until we know more is fine.
Agree about the two ends of the spectrum, but caution is surely the wiser option.
As I posted upthread scaling down our family's celebrations will result in disappointment for several, but which is the wiser course?
From a government point of view, it is fine to leave that decision to each family and individual to decide (in these circumstances, as we know more that may change).
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Scientific advisers, as opposed to scientific researchers, have had a bloody awful pandemic.
It’s been a disaster for clear and effective communication about science to the general public, which is all the more tragic given the unprecedented scientific success of developing multiple vaccines so quickly.
Is that actually true? I watch my son regularly prepare a LFT with skill. He understands what it does and why. We all are familiar with scientific terms that we had never heard of and have access to complex data we never had before. Everyone interprets graphs. We understand how viruses are transmitted, what vaccines do to give us immunity and even - especially now - that mutations in the virus create variants that demand action.
We take a lot for granted, but have come a very long way.
Is it not irresponsible for the Labour Supporting Daily Mirror to run with this Boris story right now? So he had a works drinkies. Number ten say all guidelines were followed for such things, though it may have been a bit naughty. But more importantly, if further measures need to be introduced, which presumably being Labour the mirror will back, it needs people to follow them, which this story is undermining the likelihood of happening. Whatever argument they used to print to say it’s in national interest, It’s not in the National Interest for stories like that right now, in this difficult winter, undermining the governments virus fight no wonder other media organisations are not touching it. They should have held it back rather than undermine the country’s Covid measures shouldn’t they?
Have a good night 🙋♀️
Of course it isn't irresponsible. If this was an isolated incident a year ago then maybe. But it isn't. the PM doesn't care for other people's rules and continually flaunts the guidelines. This is about trying to force him to be a man and actually lead for a change before more people die.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Scientific advisers, as opposed to scientific researchers, have had a bloody awful pandemic.
It’s been a disaster for clear and effective communication about science to the general public, which is all the more tragic given the unprecedented scientific success of developing multiple vaccines so quickly.
For me the problem has been the status of the scientific advisers. Depending on the political mood they have been either used as human shields for ministers ("we know this is unpopular but we must follow the science") or discarded ("they advise, we decide").
The weather. I'm driving down to Manchester tomorrow morning and the overnight forecast is either rain (yay!) or heavy snow (oh hell no) depending on which forecaster you look at.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
@Dura_Ace apparently she wont get the vaccine as tested on animals I am told
Do we then assume none of your cars are painted as I know for a fact all the chemicals in car paint have ld50 figures which means they have been tested on animals
People FPT are saying they'd go veggie for a while if he got jabbed.
Now, that's rewarding bad behaviour. Since the stick often works better than the carrot, I'll go the opposite way: Dura, if you don't get yourself jabbed, I'll have a delicious, mouth-watering bacon sandwich, or glistening rare steak, or a sublime chicken korma, every day until you do. I'll eat *more* meat than I normally do.
There: think of the animals you'll save.
I was highlighting the hypocrisy....wont get a jab because tested on animals, yet uses things all the time in everyday life tested on animals without any qualms
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
The people who had a really bad pandemic are the Oxbridge arts graduates in the media and government, usually self proclaimed kings of the universe, who found themselves off the pace intellectually and adrift, unable to ask intelligent questions. It was particularly fun to see PPE take on a new meaning.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
The agenda is that when they say something that is out of line they must be acting against the government. So when Jenny Harries says something they agree with, they are Following the Science by enacting the scientist's recommendations. When Jenny Harries says something their backbenchers disagree with she is a witch who is only saying things to damage Boris Johnson.
As usual I just want some consistency. Had they said from the start that the advisers advise and they decide that would have been fine. Instead it was "we're following the science" until they weren't. And now that the science is saying do things they don't want to do, the science instead of being followed must have a nefarious "axe to grind"
OT, Monbiot is bracingly and completely correct this morning that the extra amendments bolted on to the policing bill, and completely missed by the media, as well as parts of the original bill itself, are a threat to all of us and our basic democratic rights.
Most concerning of all, among many concerns, is the open door to making any noisy, rather than violent, protest - and even helping to publicise such a protest online, by retweeting it, for instance - an arrestable offence.
Very concerning stuff, and as so often in the last two decades, the British media, claiming to be fearless, is asleep at the wheel .
Across what has been commonly regarded as the free world, the right is actively working to dismantle democracy. You see it where the GOP is in power in the US, with our government, and with the governments in countries like Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and India. It's all happening in very plain sight.
My favourite coffee mug I've had for many years now is a Big Bang Theory coffee mug that says "Oh what fresh hell is this" . . . its been rather apt the last couple of years.
Judge blocks Biden's COVID-19 vaccine rule for healthcare workers across the U.S. - Reuters
The amount of political power US judges have is absolubtely crackers.
TBF the other thing that happens a lot is that administrations overreach the powers that Congress intended to give them, when that happens the courts are the only way to make them follow the law.
This doesn't happen so much in the UK because if you have the ability to form a government, you generally also have a majority to pass legislation, so you can change the law instead of trying to stretch it. But when we had a weird case where the PM was trying to do things that Parliament wouldn't vote for, as we did over Brexit, we also saw the PM overreaching (by proroguing parliament) and the courts slapping him down.
Thanks, Edmund. I was going to make a similar comment. Other aspect are, IMO: 1. having a Constitution as a single, revered, document means that it is easier in some ways for judges to provide a reasoned justification for overturning executive decisions and congressional laws. 2. it is literally in US (i.e. federal) judges' job description (via the Judicial Branch Powers) to provide a check and balance to the powers of Congress and the Executive, that is to strike down Presidential decisions and Congressional laws either in whole or in part if deemed unconstitutional. I am not sure that is the case for most judges in the UK (the British Supreme Court was created after I left the UK)
When it hits the poor and unvaxxed - and across Africa - with its insane transmissibility….
This is now going beyond a global health emergency to a potential terminal nightmare. Vaccines seem to work, still, thank God but they will only work if everyone gets one
20-30 years ago large scale PCR testing and gene sequencing would have been scarce and certainly unaffordable to use widely. We'd be flying blind through this pandemic. And you can forget having effective vaccines in just a year. Even 10 years ago most of these things would have proven much harder to do. In a way we are very lucky this is happening now.
Even with our technological and scientific advances we are very fortunate that we didn't begin the pandemic with a Delta or Omicron.
As it is I think the death toll from this pandemic now has a fair chance of exceeding the Spanish flu.
Yes, absolutely
It’s basic maths innit? Africa has largely avoided a huge wave, no one is sure why. Youth?
This seems to be their wave, finally. It will sweep across Africa and it could kill tens of millions, putting it up there with Spanish Flu. I still hope to God I am wrong
This is literally every night now. You get some booze inside you and become incapable of any rational discussion. The site just gets swamped by your apocalyptic hysteria. Every night. I’ll be back in the morning, when you are either absent, or sober.
Jesus Christ I am entirely rational. I am lying in a hotel in Hereford simply crunching the numbers. They are inescapable
Yes, they could all be wrong, but this is a numbers-based website.
Compare it to an election. What we’re getting now is a sense of the postal votes and the first ballot boxes being opened. There is still a long way to go. But there is cause for Bufton Tufton MP for Complacenyshire to think Shit, I could lose this
UNlike an election we can still change the result! Every indicator says: maximise your jab rate. Which is what the UKG is doing, I just think they need to go further, faster
There used to be a poster on here, @eadric i think, who would make up numbers and call them “assumptions”.
I think he believed there would be 2m dead in the UK but the end of 2020
I wonder what happened to him?
I'll have you know that over 200 million have died in the United Kingdom over the last... ooohhh... 5,000 years. So, if anything, @Leon underegged it.
Rather like my daughter telling my brother-in-law that, should he have just one more cigar, he'd have a 100% lifetime chance of getting cancer. (He has already had cancer).
Judge blocks Biden's COVID-19 vaccine rule for healthcare workers across the U.S. - Reuters
The amount of political power US judges have is absolubtely crackers.
TBF the other thing that happens a lot is that administrations overreach the powers that Congress intended to give them, when that happens the courts are the only way to make them follow the law.
This doesn't happen so much in the UK because if you have the ability to form a government, you generally also have a majority to pass legislation, so you can change the law instead of trying to stretch it. But when we had a weird case where the PM was trying to do things that Parliament wouldn't vote for, as we did over Brexit, we also saw the PM overreaching (by proroguing parliament) and the courts slapping him down.
Thanks, Edmund. I was going to make a similar comment. Other aspect are, IMO: 1. having a Constitution as a single, revered, document means that it is easier in some ways for judges to provide a reasoned justification for overturning executive decisions and congressional laws. 2. it is literally in US (i.e. federal) judges' job description (via the Judicial Branch Powers) to provide a check and balance to the powers of Congress and the Executive, that is to strike down Presidential decisions and Congressional laws either in whole or in part if deemed unconstitutional. I am not sure that is the case for most judges in the UK (the British Supreme Court was created after I left the UK)
Judge blocks Biden's COVID-19 vaccine rule for healthcare workers across the U.S. - Reuters
The amount of political power US judges have is absolubtely crackers.
TBF the other thing that happens a lot is that administrations overreach the powers that Congress intended to give them, when that happens the courts are the only way to make them follow the law.
This doesn't happen so much in the UK because if you have the ability to form a government, you generally also have a majority to pass legislation, so you can change the law instead of trying to stretch it. But when we had a weird case where the PM was trying to do things that Parliament wouldn't vote for, as we did over Brexit, we also saw the PM overreaching (by proroguing parliament) and the courts slapping him down.
Thanks, Edmund. I was going to make a similar comment. Other aspect are, IMO: 1. having a Constitution as a single, revered, document means that it is easier in some ways for judges to provide a reasoned justification for overturning executive decisions and congressional laws. 2. it is literally in US (i.e. federal) judges' job description (via the Judicial Branch Powers) to provide a check and balance to the powers of Congress and the Executive, that is to strike down Presidential decisions and Congressional laws either in whole or in part if deemed unconstitutional. I am not sure that is the case for most judges in the UK (the British Supreme Court was created after I left the UK)
My understanding is that your second point is still the case. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is not a constitutional court in quite the same way as SCOTUS. If parliament passes a law, then it is Law and the UK Supreme Court gets no say. My understanding is, that if Parliament wants to legislate around prorogation contrary to the decision in Miller they are free to do so (though it's currently a prerogative power, so they'd need to take it away from the Queen/Government and put it in the hands of parliament, I think). To get around SCOTUS, it would require a constitutional amendment, which is a very high bar. Perhaps too high.
@Dura_Ace apparently she wont get the vaccine as tested on animals I am told
Do we then assume none of your cars are painted as I know for a fact all the chemicals in car paint have ld50 figures which means they have been tested on animals
People FPT are saying they'd go veggie for a while if he got jabbed.
Now, that's rewarding bad behaviour. Since the stick often works better than the carrot, I'll go the opposite way: Dura, if you don't get yourself jabbed, I'll have a delicious, mouth-watering bacon sandwich, or glistening rare steak, or a sublime chicken korma, every day until you do. I'll eat *more* meat than I normally do.
There: think of the animals you'll save.
I was highlighting the hypocrisy....wont get a jab because tested on animals, yet uses things all the time in everyday life tested on animals without any qualms
Yeah, it's just an excuse. He wants to be different, appear edgy, in control. Take his stories about his dangerous driving: they're often elegant stories, entertainingly told. But they don't hide the fact he's a first-grade dangerous tw@t who should be banned from ever driving anything bigger than a toddler's trike. And even then with a permanently-blaring horn to warn everyone else of his presence.
That's if his stories are true. If they're not, then he's even worse...
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Individual scientists have their own agendas. Susan Mickie for instance thinks government control of society is a good thing. Then that other guy who thinks that it is immoral to boost in the UK before the developing world is vaccinated.
It’s fine for them to have political views, but they are not part of their remit and if it is colouring their advice then it is them pushing an agenda
Donald Trump tested positive for Covid-19 three days before his first debate against Joe Biden, the former president’s fourth and last chief of staff has revealed in a new book.
Mark Meadows also writes that though he knew each candidate was required “to test negative for the virus within seventy two hours of the start time … Nothing was going to stop [Trump] from going out there”.
Trump, Meadows says in the book, returned a negative result from a different test shortly after the positive.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Your error is to believe there is a 'scientist' agenda. There is not. There are personal agendas, which the person attempts to boost through, most unscientifically, labelling themselves a 'scientist' and wrapping their rationale in selective use of facts and science.
Seattle Times ($) - Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has sold 838,584 shares, more than half his shares in the company, “for personal financial planning and diversification reasons,” according to a statement Tuesday from a Microsoft spokesperson.
The bigger news is that he's put it all on RefUK winning OB&S
Just heard Lisa Nandy for the second time in two days. I don't know how I managed to miss her. I'd just put her in a basket with Angela Rayner and she's anything but.
It feels like Labour are getting themselves together in a big way. Things must have been happening behind the scenes. I don't know what but you can sense it. Could 2024 be 1997 revisited? It's got a few of the ingredients not least a rancid Tory government and a rejuvenated opposition.
Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.
It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Individual scientists have their own agendas. Susan Mickie for instance thinks government control of society is a good thing. Then that other guy who thinks that it is immoral to boost in the UK before the developing world is vaccinated.
It’s fine for them to have political views, but they are not part of their remit and if it is colouring their advice then it is them pushing an agenda
On an individual level, sure, but that's a different kettle of fish from the collective 'the science'. If individual scientists are pushing and agenda/answering questions put to them from with the benefit of their expertise to other individuals through the media, then what does it matter if they influence the behaviour of individuals who find their arguments persuasive? That's not Government policy, and their opinions don't have force of law.
As you pointed out, the Government gets a range of advice from scientists. As individuals they will have opinions, and they will interpret the same numbers differently. It's the job of ministers to make a decision. Where they go 'against the science', it's perfectly fine for scientists to point that out.
I think this distinction between political Vs scientific views is not a strong distinction in the minds of scientists. A scientists might think that the science suggests we should vaccinate the vulnerable globally, before moving onto less vulnerable populations in richer countries. Is that political, or is it scientific?
Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.
It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.
It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
Well, just look at public trust in lawyers for your answer.
EDIT: More seriously, it is again not wrong for lawyers to have political views, or even to use the law to derive their political opinions. It would be the mis-application of the law combined with reliance of the trust people have in them to understand the law on legal issues that the public cannot be expected to know that would be objectionable.
Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.
It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Individual scientists have their own agendas. Susan Mickie for instance thinks government control of society is a good thing. Then that other guy who thinks that it is immoral to boost in the UK before the developing world is vaccinated.
It’s fine for them to have political views, but they are not part of their remit and if it is colouring their advice then it is them pushing an agenda
On an individual level, sure, but that's a different kettle of fish from the collective 'the science'. If individual scientists are pushing and agenda/answering questions put to them from with the benefit of their expertise to other individuals through the media, then what does it matter if they influence the behaviour of individuals who find their arguments persuasive? That's not Government policy, and their opinions don't have force of law.
As you pointed out, the Government gets a range of advice from scientists. As individuals they will have opinions, and they will interpret the same numbers differently. It's the job of ministers to make a decision. Where they go 'against the science', it's perfectly fine for scientists to point that out.
I think this distinction between political Vs scientific views is not a strong distinction in the minds of scientists. A scientists might think that the science suggests we should vaccinate the vulnerable globally, before moving onto less vulnerable populations in richer countries. Is that political, or is it scientific?
That depends on the rationale put forward, its fairly easy to spot a moral argument over one which might be moral and also scientific. Particularly if you are on a body with a limited remit and speaking individually can confuse the issue of that body's advice or role.
The issue with law and science is where it becomes an appeal to authority based on the person being a lawyer or scientist even if their personal view may not have the authority of consensus or evidence. It might, but its often assumed and becomes 'scientists say' not 'this scientist says X because y and that's why they are right'.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Your error is to believe there is a 'scientist' agenda. There is not. There are personal agendas, which the person attempts to boost through, most unscientifically, labelling themselves a 'scientist' and wrapping their rationale in selective use of facts and science.
I work with (and am one of) lots of epidemiologists and public health scientists. Most not involved in Covid particularly, but a couple on SAGE groups* and another who has advised JCVI^ (not a JVCI member, but advising on evidence on Covid impact and vaccine impact in young people).
Many are quite cautious and see this, understandably, from a public health perspective and therefore more hawkish on restrictions, masks etc as these are the tools to reduce spread. Reducing spread of disease is, generally, the reason most of them got into science. It's more of a focus than the other societal issues, such as economy, importance to people of socialising etc.
If I worked with economists, I suspect they'd be more comparatively more concerned about destroying our economy. Mental health specialists would have a different viewpoint.
It's one of the reasons it's important the government has a balanced team of advisors considering all the issues.
As TimT says, everyone has their personal biases too, political biases etc. Some would rubbish a policy from Johnson but be more accepting of the same from Sturgeon for example, because she gives the impression of having thought about it. All academics are also raging pinko commie lefties obviously
*the one I know better was of the view keep things tight pre-vaccine but open up after, as long as hospitalisations remained manageable because "it ain't going to get any better than this" ^this person does think the evidence of vaccine benefit at the individual level for children is uncertain - vaccine probably outweighed risks, but you can't be too definitive, but should also consider benefits to kids of a not locked-down society. Given low risks, that persons personal view was to offer the vaccine, but not really push either way. Also very much against masks around young children, for development, pro-masks for adults in adult only/older child settings.
Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.
It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Individual scientists have their own agendas. Susan Mickie for instance thinks government control of society is a good thing. Then that other guy who thinks that it is immoral to boost in the UK before the developing world is vaccinated.
It’s fine for them to have political views, but they are not part of their remit and if it is colouring their advice then it is them pushing an agenda
On an individual level, sure, but that's a different kettle of fish from the collective 'the science'. If individual scientists are pushing and agenda/answering questions put to them from with the benefit of their expertise to other individuals through the media, then what does it matter if they influence the behaviour of individuals who find their arguments persuasive? That's not Government policy, and their opinions don't have force of law.
As you pointed out, the Government gets a range of advice from scientists. As individuals they will have opinions, and they will interpret the same numbers differently. It's the job of ministers to make a decision. Where they go 'against the science', it's perfectly fine for scientists to point that out.
I think this distinction between political Vs scientific views is not a strong distinction in the minds of scientists. A scientists might think that the science suggests we should vaccinate the vulnerable globally, before moving onto less vulnerable populations in richer countries. Is that political, or is it scientific?
It's the rational (and scientific) thing to do if you want to minimise overall harm. The most bang for a set amount of vaccine buck.
If you want to minimise harm in your country, then you might take a different view. And minimising hamr in your own country is quite possibly the right thing to do - looking after those you are supposed to be working for as a politician.
Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.
It’s not objectionable at all.
But @OldKingCole’s original contention was that scientists have “no axe to grind”. I disagree with that, even though I have no issue with them having axes or, even, grinding them
Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.
It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
Well, just look at public trust in lawyers for your answer.
Do you think that's as a result of lawyers expressing political views?
I rather suspect it's lawyers' habit of creating vast mounds of work and then charging the earth for doing it.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Individual scientists have their own agendas. Susan Mickie for instance thinks government control of society is a good thing. Then that other guy who thinks that it is immoral to boost in the UK before the developing world is vaccinated.
It’s fine for them to have political views, but they are not part of their remit and if it is colouring their advice then it is them pushing an agenda
On an individual level, sure, but that's a different kettle of fish from the collective 'the science'. If individual scientists are pushing and agenda/answering questions put to them from with the benefit of their expertise to other individuals through the media, then what does it matter if they influence the behaviour of individuals who find their arguments persuasive? That's not Government policy, and their opinions don't have force of law.
As you pointed out, the Government gets a range of advice from scientists. As individuals they will have opinions, and they will interpret the same numbers differently. It's the job of ministers to make a decision. Where they go 'against the science', it's perfectly fine for scientists to point that out.
I think this distinction between political Vs scientific views is not a strong distinction in the minds of scientists. A scientists might think that the science suggests we should vaccinate the vulnerable globally, before moving onto less vulnerable populations in richer countries. Is that political, or is it scientific?
It becomes political when they hold up the decision making process because they aren’t getting their own way
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Your error is to believe there is a 'scientist' agenda. There is not. There are personal agendas, which the person attempts to boost through, most unscientifically, labelling themselves a 'scientist' and wrapping their rationale in selective use of facts and science.
I work with (and am one of) lots of epidemiologists and public health scientists. Most not involved in Covid particularly, but a couple on SAGE groups* and another who has advised JCVI^ (not a JVCI member, but advising on evidence on Covid impact and vaccine impact in young people).
Many are quite cautious and see this, understandably, from a public health perspective and therefore more hawkish on restrictions, masks etc as these are the tools to reduce spread. Reducing spread of disease is, generally, the reason most of them got into science. It's more of a focus than the other societal issues, such as economy, importance to people of socialising etc.
If I worked with economists, I suspect they'd be more comparatively more concerned about destroying our economy. Mental health specialists would have a different viewpoint.
It's one of the reasons it's important the government has a balanced team of advisors considering all the issues.
As TimT says, everyone has their personal biases too, political biases etc. Some would rubbish a policy from Johnson but be more accepting of the same from Sturgeon for example, because she gives the impression of having thought about it. All academics are also raging pinko commie lefties obviously
*the one I know better was of the view keep things tight pre-vaccine but open up after, as long as hospitalisations remained manageable because "it ain't going to get any better than this" ^this person does think the evidence of vaccine benefit at the individual level for children is uncertain - vaccine probably outweighed risks, but you can't be too definitive, but should also consider benefits to kids of a not locked-down society. Given low risks, that persons personal view was to offer the vaccine, but not really push either way. Also very much against masks around young children, for development, pro-masks for adults in adult only/older child settings.
I would be pretty much in agreement with the one you quote at the end of your post.
I am very much for scientists, engineers, doctors, economists, anyone having political views and participating in the political process. I am also very much for them having honest disagreements on both politics and their professional discipline. This is not the issue.
The issue is when someone breaches trust (by using the label scientist, lawyer, economist, whatever to create the sense of authoritative knowledge on some more arcane issue) by deliberately misusing the discipline in question (science, law, whatever) to bend the logic to arrive at their predetermined political bias.
Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.
It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
Yes.
And have I missed people saying that lawyers should keep out of politics? Or do people just not tend to say that?
People say all the time the law should not a continuation of politics by other means. And it's fairly easy to spot lawyers with a continual political axe to grind from a measured legal opinion which might also happen to grind an axe.
These things are grey areas and professional background doesnt and shouldn't preclude political commentary, but people's expertise even in their fields is very precise, and I don't see what's unreasonable about noting that there is a tendency to conflate any comment on a subject from a notable lawyer or scientist as equally relevant and that that is not always the case - it's on the same spectrum as those fringe 'scientists' who are not climate experts using 'I'm a scientist' to justify what is actually just a political anti climate change view.
Obviously nowhere near as bad, but the critical point is it is human nature for people including lawyers and scientists to allow personal politics to influence professional opinion, so we have to be on the watch for it.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Your error is to believe there is a 'scientist' agenda. There is not. There are personal agendas, which the person attempts to boost through, most unscientifically, labelling themselves a 'scientist' and wrapping their rationale in selective use of facts and science.
I work with (and am one of) lots of epidemiologists and public health scientists. Most not involved in Covid particularly, but a couple on SAGE groups* and another who has advised JCVI^ (not a JVCI member, but advising on evidence on Covid impact and vaccine impact in young people).
Many are quite cautious and see this, understandably, from a public health perspective and therefore more hawkish on restrictions, masks etc as these are the tools to reduce spread. Reducing spread of disease is, generally, the reason most of them got into science. It's more of a focus than the other societal issues, such as economy, importance to people of socialising etc.
If I worked with economists, I suspect they'd be more comparatively more concerned about destroying our economy. Mental health specialists would have a different viewpoint.
It's one of the reasons it's important the government has a balanced team of advisors considering all the issues.
As TimT says, everyone has their personal biases too, political biases etc. Some would rubbish a policy from Johnson but be more accepting of the same from Sturgeon for example, because she gives the impression of having thought about it. All academics are also raging pinko commie lefties obviously
*the one I know better was of the view keep things tight pre-vaccine but open up after, as long as hospitalisations remained manageable because "it ain't going to get any better than this" ^this person does think the evidence of vaccine benefit at the individual level for children is uncertain - vaccine probably outweighed risks, but you can't be too definitive, but should also consider benefits to kids of a not locked-down society. Given low risks, that persons personal view was to offer the vaccine, but not really push either way. Also very much against masks around young children, for development, pro-masks for adults in adult only/older child settings.
I would be pretty much in agreement with the one you quote at the end of your post.
I am very much for scientists, engineers, doctors, economists, anyone having political views and participating in the political process. I am also very much for them having honest disagreements on both politics and their professional discipline. This is not the issue.
The issue is when someone breaches trust (by using the label scientist, lawyer, economist, whatever to create the sense of authoritative knowledge on some more arcane issue) by deliberately misusing the discipline in question (science, law, whatever) to bend the logic to arrive at their predetermined political bias.
Yep. And we've definitely seen some instances of that during the pandemic.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Your error is to believe there is a 'scientist' agenda. There is not. There are personal agendas, which the person attempts to boost through, most unscientifically, labelling themselves a 'scientist' and wrapping their rationale in selective use of facts and science.
I work with (and am one of) lots of epidemiologists and public health scientists. Most not involved in Covid particularly, but a couple on SAGE groups* and another who has advised JCVI^ (not a JVCI member, but advising on evidence on Covid impact and vaccine impact in young people).
Many are quite cautious and see this, understandably, from a public health perspective and therefore more hawkish on restrictions, masks etc as these are the tools to reduce spread. Reducing spread of disease is, generally, the reason most of them got into science. It's more of a focus than the other societal issues, such as economy, importance to people of socialising etc.
If I worked with economists, I suspect they'd be more comparatively more concerned about destroying our economy. Mental health specialists would have a different viewpoint.
It's one of the reasons it's important the government has a balanced team of advisors considering all the issues.
As TimT says, everyone has their personal biases too, political biases etc. Some would rubbish a policy from Johnson but be more accepting of the same from Sturgeon for example, because she gives the impression of having thought about it. All academics are also raging pinko commie lefties obviously
*the one I know better was of the view keep things tight pre-vaccine but open up after, as long as hospitalisations remained manageable because "it ain't going to get any better than this" ^this person does think the evidence of vaccine benefit at the individual level for children is uncertain - vaccine probably outweighed risks, but you can't be too definitive, but should also consider benefits to kids of a not locked-down society. Given low risks, that persons personal view was to offer the vaccine, but not really push either way. Also very much against masks around young children, for development, pro-masks for adults in adult only/older child settings.
I would be pretty much in agreement with the one you quote at the end of your post.
I am very much for scientists, engineers, doctors, economists, anyone having political views and participating in the political process. I am also very much for them having honest disagreements on both politics and their professional discipline. This is not the issue.
The issue is when someone breaches trust (by using the label scientist, lawyer, economist, whatever to create the sense of authoritative knowledge on some more arcane issue) by deliberately misusing the discipline in question (science, law, whatever) to bend the logic to arrive at their predetermined political bias.
Yep. And we've definitely seen some instances of that during the pandemic.
The whole iSAGE group exists to undermine the government. They are nothing more than a political pressure group using the word "science" to push a lockdown forever agenda. The issue is with our media in not challenging these wankers every time they pipe up.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Individual scientists have their own agendas. Susan Mickie for instance thinks government control of society is a good thing. Then that other guy who thinks that it is immoral to boost in the UK before the developing world is vaccinated.
It’s fine for them to have political views, but they are not part of their remit and if it is colouring their advice then it is them pushing an agenda
On an individual level, sure, but that's a different kettle of fish from the collective 'the science'. If individual scientists are pushing and agenda/answering questions put to them from with the benefit of their expertise to other individuals through the media, then what does it matter if they influence the behaviour of individuals who find their arguments persuasive? That's not Government policy, and their opinions don't have force of law.
As you pointed out, the Government gets a range of advice from scientists. As individuals they will have opinions, and they will interpret the same numbers differently. It's the job of ministers to make a decision. Where they go 'against the science', it's perfectly fine for scientists to point that out.
I think this distinction between political Vs scientific views is not a strong distinction in the minds of scientists. A scientists might think that the science suggests we should vaccinate the vulnerable globally, before moving onto less vulnerable populations in richer countries. Is that political, or is it scientific?
It becomes political when they hold up the decision making process because they aren’t getting their own way
Indeed. A minority of the JCVI held up reporting on boosters and child vaccination. They didn't present evidence that they were bad etc - they used the process and the wish for unanimity to attempt to control government policy.
In the end, the log jam was broken by Javid telling JCVI, not that he was going to over-rule them, but that if they didn't report, he would pass the decisions to the Chief Medical Officers of the nations of the UK.
The things to see here is that a scientific opinion was not being expressed by the scientists. They were deliberately not expressing an opinion.
Mr. Max, the journalists, especially of the political variety, have a stunning lack of expertise or even basic understanding of almost everything. The vast majority are shallow sensationalists.
Edited extra bit: or simply regurgitate the political consensus/party lines.
Boris was good today and for all his faults I am pleased he is PM at this time rather than Starmer
The omicron variant in my view has been helpful to Boris and I expect both to be holds
To bestow the genius tag on Johnson after yesterday's performance suggests we are all assuming that Dr Jenny Harries is wrong and Johnson is right regarding Christmas. That assumption may well help Johnson to comfortably win the two by elections.
Johnson really has bet the house on Omicron being either mild or the slayer of Delta. To an untrained eye like mine at present it looks like a great call, although that might be part wishful thinking.
As for the hapless, useless Starmer who you are relieved today, is nowhere near the levers of government, I believe his response is politically rather astute. He has focused on foreign travel and in particular testing overseas prior to the flight home. That seems like an easy win if Johnson has called it wrong, and a "no harm done" if he hasn't.
Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.
It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
Well, just look at public trust in lawyers for your answer.
Do you think that's as a result of lawyers expressing political views?
I rather suspect it's lawyers' habit of creating vast mounds of work and then charging the earth for doing it.
Lawyers being involved and arguing for ever more complex laws that they then charge ever more money for interpreting. And then finding loopholes in for clients with deep pockets.
OT, Monbiot is bracingly and completely correct this morning that the extra amendments bolted on to the policing bill, and completely missed by the media, as well as parts of the original bill itself, are a threat to all of us and our basic democratic rights.
Most concerning of all, among many concerns, is the open door to making any noisy, rather than violent, protest - and even helping to publicise such a protest online, by retweeting it, for instance - an arrestable offence.
Very concerning stuff, and as so often in the last two decades, the British media, claiming to be fearless, is asleep at the wheel .
Across what has been commonly regarded as the free world, the right is actively working to dismantle democracy. You see it where the GOP is in power in the US, with our government, and with the governments in countries like Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and India. It's all happening in very plain sight.
I think most people would take the view that obstructing roads and infrastructure as part of protests should be a criminal offence, rather than a civil matter involving various injunctions etc. It won't stop people doing it, but they will be arrested.
Of more concern is the criminalisation of peripheral activity relating to such protests; and indeed the criminalisation of certain forms of political expression. People are getting long jail sentences for little other than associating with banned political groups. This ties in with the broad utopian impulse to make people safe by criminalising hate and abuse; driven by an apparent political consensus of left and right.
Overall these developments are concerning, but they are part of a bigger picture and it is incorrect to characterise it all as being solely driven by the right.
It’s time for the UK to consider vaxports at the very least, and probably mandatory jabs
Omicron is that bad for the unvaxxed (and the health systems they pressure)
No and hell no.
Mandatory vaccination is an outrageous infringement of liberty
What about our liberty? Spreading Covid to others like wildfire or bedblocking ICU beds for cancer patients because one couldn't be arsed to take a vaccine is rather illiberal.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
The agenda that they believe more restrictions are needed, and that the government is not going to implement them, so for the greater good they try something else to put pressure on the government. Nothing particularly wrong with that, although there probably is or should be rules of engagement around being on SAGE.
On topic: I had a dabble in both by elections on Lab and LD respectively, mainly with a view to them being trading bets.
NS worked out well enough (25% profit whatever the outcome; I caught a peak for selling although that has now been exceeded in last few days).
On OB&S I only caught a little movement to Lab, so I'm break-even on a Con hold (or anyone else except Lab) and 40% up if Lab win. I don't expect to make anything on that, but didn't think the peanuts from a return either way were worth it. I've also got RefUK to beat 5%, which I'm fairly confident on and haven't traded at all.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Individual scientists have their own agendas. Susan Mickie for instance thinks government control of society is a good thing. Then that other guy who thinks that it is immoral to boost in the UK before the developing world is vaccinated.
It’s fine for them to have political views, but they are not part of their remit and if it is colouring their advice then it is them pushing an agenda
On an individual level, sure, but that's a different kettle of fish from the collective 'the science'. If individual scientists are pushing and agenda/answering questions put to them from with the benefit of their expertise to other individuals through the media, then what does it matter if they influence the behaviour of individuals who find their arguments persuasive? That's not Government policy, and their opinions don't have force of law.
As you pointed out, the Government gets a range of advice from scientists. As individuals they will have opinions, and they will interpret the same numbers differently. It's the job of ministers to make a decision. Where they go 'against the science', it's perfectly fine for scientists to point that out.
I think this distinction between political Vs scientific views is not a strong distinction in the minds of scientists. A scientists might think that the science suggests we should vaccinate the vulnerable globally, before moving onto less vulnerable populations in richer countries. Is that political, or is it scientific?
It becomes political when they hold up the decision making process because they aren’t getting their own way
Indeed. A minority of the JCVI held up reporting on boosters and child vaccination. They didn't present evidence that they were bad etc - they used the process and the wish for unanimity to attempt to control government policy.
In the end, the log jam was broken by Javid telling JCVI, not that he was going to over-rule them, but that if they didn't report, he would pass the decisions to the Chief Medical Officers of the nations of the UK.
The things to see here is that a scientific opinion was not being expressed by the scientists. They were deliberately not expressing an opinion.
It was quite a good exercise in the end because Javid laid down the law and now the JCVI have dropped all notion of being able to hold up decision making.
Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.
It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
Well, just look at public trust in lawyers for your answer.
Do you think that's as a result of lawyers expressing political views?
I rather suspect it's lawyers' habit of creating vast mounds of work and then charging the earth for doing it.
Lawyers being involved and arguing for ever more complex laws that they then charge ever more money for interpreting. And then finding loopholes in for clients with deep pockets.
Why should that erode trust?
Yes, it's one of those professions where regular members of the public who come into contact with it rarely come away with a favourable impression. Most commonly it'll be the bill for filling in a few simple forms when you move house, or the bill for dealing with a dead relative's affairs.
@Dura_Ace apparently she wont get the vaccine as tested on animals I am told
Do we then assume none of your cars are painted as I know for a fact all the chemicals in car paint have ld50 figures which means they have been tested on animals
People FPT are saying they'd go veggie for a while if he got jabbed.
Now, that's rewarding bad behaviour. Since the stick often works better than the carrot, I'll go the opposite way: Dura, if you don't get yourself jabbed, I'll have a delicious, mouth-watering bacon sandwich, or glistening rare steak, or a sublime chicken korma, every day until you do. I'll eat *more* meat than I normally do.
There: think of the animals you'll save.
I was highlighting the hypocrisy....wont get a jab because tested on animals, yet uses things all the time in everyday life tested on animals without any qualms
Yeah, it's just an excuse. He wants to be different, appear edgy, in control. Take his stories about his dangerous driving: they're often elegant stories, entertainingly told. But they don't hide the fact he's a first-grade dangerous tw@t who should be banned from ever driving anything bigger than a toddler's trike. And even then with a permanently-blaring horn to warn everyone else of his presence.
That's if his stories are true. If they're not, then he's even worse...
Surely, if they are not true he is just a gifted raconteur rather than a Menace To The Public?
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Your error is to believe there is a 'scientist' agenda. There is not. There are personal agendas, which the person attempts to boost through, most unscientifically, labelling themselves a 'scientist' and wrapping their rationale in selective use of facts and science.
I work with (and am one of) lots of epidemiologists and public health scientists. Most not involved in Covid particularly, but a couple on SAGE groups* and another who has advised JCVI^ (not a JVCI member, but advising on evidence on Covid impact and vaccine impact in young people).
Many are quite cautious and see this, understandably, from a public health perspective and therefore more hawkish on restrictions, masks etc as these are the tools to reduce spread. Reducing spread of disease is, generally, the reason most of them got into science. It's more of a focus than the other societal issues, such as economy, importance to people of socialising etc.
If I worked with economists, I suspect they'd be more comparatively more concerned about destroying our economy. Mental health specialists would have a different viewpoint.
It's one of the reasons it's important the government has a balanced team of advisors considering all the issues.
As TimT says, everyone has their personal biases too, political biases etc. Some would rubbish a policy from Johnson but be more accepting of the same from Sturgeon for example, because she gives the impression of having thought about it. All academics are also raging pinko commie lefties obviously
*the one I know better was of the view keep things tight pre-vaccine but open up after, as long as hospitalisations remained manageable because "it ain't going to get any better than this" ^this person does think the evidence of vaccine benefit at the individual level for children is uncertain - vaccine probably outweighed risks, but you can't be too definitive, but should also consider benefits to kids of a not locked-down society. Given low risks, that persons personal view was to offer the vaccine, but not really push either way. Also very much against masks around young children, for development, pro-masks for adults in adult only/older child settings.
I would be pretty much in agreement with the one you quote at the end of your post.
I am very much for scientists, engineers, doctors, economists, anyone having political views and participating in the political process. I am also very much for them having honest disagreements on both politics and their professional discipline. This is not the issue.
The issue is when someone breaches trust (by using the label scientist, lawyer, economist, whatever to create the sense of authoritative knowledge on some more arcane issue) by deliberately misusing the discipline in question (science, law, whatever) to bend the logic to arrive at their predetermined political bias.
Yep. And we've definitely seen some instances of that during the pandemic.
The whole iSAGE group exists to undermine the government. They are nothing more than a political pressure group using the word "science" to push a lockdown forever agenda. The issue is with our media in not challenging these wankers every time they pipe up.
Yep, mainly what I had in mind. Plus a few other individuals.
The people who had a really bad pandemic are the Oxbridge arts graduates in the media and government, usually self proclaimed kings of the universe, who found themselves off the pace intellectually and adrift, unable to ask intelligent questions. It was particularly fun to see PPE take on a new meaning.
PPE stands for Piss-Poor Economics, as all non-Oxford educated economists know.
Mr. Max, the journalists, especially of the political variety, have a stunning lack of expertise or even basic understanding of almost everything. The vast majority are shallow sensationalists.
Edited extra bit: or simply regurgitate the political consensus/party lines.
Thank God, THANK GOD I say, that there is nobody like that here.
Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.
It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
Yes.
And have I missed people saying that lawyers should keep out of politics? Or do people just not tend to say that?
People say all the time the law should not a continuation of politics by other means. And it's fairly easy to spot lawyers with a continual political axe to grind from a measured legal opinion which might also happen to grind an axe.
These things are grey areas and professional background doesnt and shouldn't preclude political commentary, but people's expertise even in their fields is very precise, and I don't see what's unreasonable about noting that there is a tendency to conflate any comment on a subject from a notable lawyer or scientist as equally relevant and that that is not always the case - it's on the same spectrum as those fringe 'scientists' who are not climate experts using 'I'm a scientist' to justify what is actually just a political anti climate change view.
Obviously nowhere near as bad, but the critical point is it is human nature for people including lawyers and scientists to allow personal politics to influence professional opinion, so we have to be on the watch for it.
Not much to disagree with there but I do need to draw one thing out into the light. That someone who is an expert in one field isn't necessarily an expert in another field is obviously true. My experience of Java programming doesn't mean I know the first thing about Roman history. However, as it happens, I do know a bit about Roman history too. The point is, it's wrong to overcorrect. Just because someone is a scientist / footballer / lawyer, it doesn't mean that they are politically clueless. They might have thought very deeply about the wider implications of the professionally acquired knowledge.
Lastly, I can't help feeling like being an expert in one thing makes you more reliable than someone who is an expert in nothing.
There is a long history to suggest being a true expert in one field can make someone a compete idiot in other fields.
I still don't know of any of the assembled medics and scientists who pop up as talking heads who want "lock down forever" as the more excitable prayees suggest on here.
Patients who survive severe Covid are more than twice as likely to die over the following year than those who remain uninfected or experience milder virus symptoms, a study says.
The research, published in Frontiers in Medicine, suggests that serious coronavirus infections may significantly damage long-term health, showing the importance of vaccination.
The increased risk of dying was greater for patients under 65, and only 20% of the severe Covid-19 patients who died did so because of typical Covid complications, such as respiratory failure.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Individual scientists have their own agendas. Susan Mickie for instance thinks government control of society is a good thing. Then that other guy who thinks that it is immoral to boost in the UK before the developing world is vaccinated.
It’s fine for them to have political views, but they are not part of their remit and if it is colouring their advice then it is them pushing an agenda
On an individual level, sure, but that's a different kettle of fish from the collective 'the science'. If individual scientists are pushing and agenda/answering questions put to them from with the benefit of their expertise to other individuals through the media, then what does it matter if they influence the behaviour of individuals who find their arguments persuasive? That's not Government policy, and their opinions don't have force of law.
As you pointed out, the Government gets a range of advice from scientists. As individuals they will have opinions, and they will interpret the same numbers differently. It's the job of ministers to make a decision. Where they go 'against the science', it's perfectly fine for scientists to point that out.
I think this distinction between political Vs scientific views is not a strong distinction in the minds of scientists. A scientists might think that the science suggests we should vaccinate the vulnerable globally, before moving onto less vulnerable populations in richer countries. Is that political, or is it scientific?
It becomes political when they hold up the decision making process because they aren’t getting their own way
Indeed. A minority of the JCVI held up reporting on boosters and child vaccination. They didn't present evidence that they were bad etc - they used the process and the wish for unanimity to attempt to control government policy.
In the end, the log jam was broken by Javid telling JCVI, not that he was going to over-rule them, but that if they didn't report, he would pass the decisions to the Chief Medical Officers of the nations of the UK.
The things to see here is that a scientific opinion was not being expressed by the scientists. They were deliberately not expressing an opinion.
I've seen, through the person I mentioned earlier, a summary of some evidence presented to JCVI (and also had a disucssion of it with that person before it was presented). These particular UK data, which were the best available at the time, were just not very definitive. Too much uncertainty in the data, particularly due to uncertainties in the numbers with any reactions to the vaccines and the numbers who had had Covid to judge the severity of Covid across the younger population, particularly long Covid symptoms which had not been very well collate at that point. It is clear that very few children get seriously ill from Covid.
So, on those data (JCVI will have had other data too, of course) as a scientist, I would not be able to come to a clear scientific view on vaccinated versus don't vaccinate for children. On a societal level, vaccination clearly made sense, but that was certainly not the question my colleague was asked for input on. I don't know the exact remit of JCVI on this, but if they were asked "does vaccination of an individual child reduce the expected harm to that child" then I can certainly understand why they would say we need to wait for more data. It's the only scientific response.
That doesn't mean I think it was right that child vaccinations were delayed - I don't and I would have had them offered as soon as we had the vaccines to do that group. But it's possible the JCVI were simply asked the wrong question, given too narrow a remit/no one in government had the balls to make the decision without the scientific backup.
It’s time for the UK to consider vaxports at the very least, and probably mandatory jabs
Omicron is that bad for the unvaxxed (and the health systems they pressure)
No and hell no.
Mandatory vaccination is an outrageous infringement of liberty
What about our liberty? Spreading Covid to others like wildfire or bedblocking ICU beds for cancer patients because one couldn't be arsed to take a vaccine is rather illiberal.
Resourcing of government infrastructure is nothing to do with liberty, nor is someone using a disproportionate share of those resources
Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.
It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
Yes.
And have I missed people saying that lawyers should keep out of politics? Or do people just not tend to say that?
People say all the time the law should not a continuation of politics by other means. And it's fairly easy to spot lawyers with a continual political axe to grind from a measured legal opinion which might also happen to grind an axe.
These things are grey areas and professional background doesnt and shouldn't preclude political commentary, but people's expertise even in their fields is very precise, and I don't see what's unreasonable about noting that there is a tendency to conflate any comment on a subject from a notable lawyer or scientist as equally relevant and that that is not always the case - it's on the same spectrum as those fringe 'scientists' who are not climate experts using 'I'm a scientist' to justify what is actually just a political anti climate change view.
Obviously nowhere near as bad, but the critical point is it is human nature for people including lawyers and scientists to allow personal politics to influence professional opinion, so we have to be on the watch for it.
Not much to disagree with there but I do need to draw one thing out into the light. That someone who is an expert in one field isn't necessarily an expert in another field is obviously true. My experience of Java programming doesn't mean I know the first thing about Roman history. However, as it happens, I do know a bit about Roman history too. The point is, it's wrong to overcorrect. Just because someone is a scientist / footballer / lawyer, it doesn't mean that they are politically clueless. They might have thought very deeply about the wider implications of the professionally acquired knowledge.
Lastly, I can't help feeling like being an expert in one thing makes you more reliable than someone who is an expert in nothing.
The evidence from social psychology is against you on that last point.
Logically speaking, you'd think you'd be right. Having the discipline to learn a field and apply critical thinking skills should be transferable to other fields. The problem is that when we become expert in our given field, we become over-confident in our abilities in general, and in particular how expert we are in other fields.
There have been numerous social psychology controlled experiments that have shown non-experts to make better decisions than experts in fields outside the experts' domain.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Individual scientists have their own agendas. Susan Mickie for instance thinks government control of society is a good thing. Then that other guy who thinks that it is immoral to boost in the UK before the developing world is vaccinated.
It’s fine for them to have political views, but they are not part of their remit and if it is colouring their advice then it is them pushing an agenda
On an individual level, sure, but that's a different kettle of fish from the collective 'the science'. If individual scientists are pushing and agenda/answering questions put to them from with the benefit of their expertise to other individuals through the media, then what does it matter if they influence the behaviour of individuals who find their arguments persuasive? That's not Government policy, and their opinions don't have force of law.
As you pointed out, the Government gets a range of advice from scientists. As individuals they will have opinions, and they will interpret the same numbers differently. It's the job of ministers to make a decision. Where they go 'against the science', it's perfectly fine for scientists to point that out.
I think this distinction between political Vs scientific views is not a strong distinction in the minds of scientists. A scientists might think that the science suggests we should vaccinate the vulnerable globally, before moving onto less vulnerable populations in richer countries. Is that political, or is it scientific?
It becomes political when they hold up the decision making process because they aren’t getting their own way
Indeed. A minority of the JCVI held up reporting on boosters and child vaccination. They didn't present evidence that they were bad etc - they used the process and the wish for unanimity to attempt to control government policy.
In the end, the log jam was broken by Javid telling JCVI, not that he was going to over-rule them, but that if they didn't report, he would pass the decisions to the Chief Medical Officers of the nations of the UK.
The things to see here is that a scientific opinion was not being expressed by the scientists. They were deliberately not expressing an opinion.
It was quite a good exercise in the end because Javid laid down the law and now the JCVI have dropped all notion of being able to hold up decision making.
I suspect (in line with my othe post) that many were relieved/quite happy that a politician stepped up to take a political decision without demanding scientific cover that didn't really exist. If 'the science' doesn't give a clear answer then someone else has to make a decision.
Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.
It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
Yes.
And have I missed people saying that lawyers should keep out of politics? Or do people just not tend to say that?
People say all the time the law should not a continuation of politics by other means. And it's fairly easy to spot lawyers with a continual political axe to grind from a measured legal opinion which might also happen to grind an axe.
These things are grey areas and professional background doesnt and shouldn't preclude political commentary, but people's expertise even in their fields is very precise, and I don't see what's unreasonable about noting that there is a tendency to conflate any comment on a subject from a notable lawyer or scientist as equally relevant and that that is not always the case - it's on the same spectrum as those fringe 'scientists' who are not climate experts using 'I'm a scientist' to justify what is actually just a political anti climate change view.
Obviously nowhere near as bad, but the critical point is it is human nature for people including lawyers and scientists to allow personal politics to influence professional opinion, so we have to be on the watch for it.
Not much to disagree with there but I do need to draw one thing out into the light. That someone who is an expert in one field isn't necessarily an expert in another field is obviously true. My experience of Java programming doesn't mean I know the first thing about Roman history. However, as it happens, I do know a bit about Roman history too. The point is, it's wrong to overcorrect. Just because someone is a scientist / footballer / lawyer, it doesn't mean that they are politically clueless. They might have thought very deeply about the wider implications of the professionally acquired knowledge.
Lastly, I can't help feeling like being an expert in one thing makes you more reliable than someone who is an expert in nothing.
The evidence from social psychology is against you on that last point.
Logically speaking, you'd think you'd be right. Having the discipline to learn a field and apply critical thinking skills should be transferable to other fields. The problem is that when we become expert in our given field, we become over-confident in our abilities in general, and in particular how expert we are in other fields.
There have been numerous social psychology controlled experiments that have shown non-experts to make better decisions than experts in fields outside the experts' domain.
It's a mark of cleverness to realise how little you really know and how much you still have to learn. The best people in their field know that they always have something more to learn.
Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.
It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
Yes.
And have I missed people saying that lawyers should keep out of politics? Or do people just not tend to say that?
People say all the time the law should not a continuation of politics by other means. And it's fairly easy to spot lawyers with a continual political axe to grind from a measured legal opinion which might also happen to grind an axe.
These things are grey areas and professional background doesnt and shouldn't preclude political commentary, but people's expertise even in their fields is very precise, and I don't see what's unreasonable about noting that there is a tendency to conflate any comment on a subject from a notable lawyer or scientist as equally relevant and that that is not always the case - it's on the same spectrum as those fringe 'scientists' who are not climate experts using 'I'm a scientist' to justify what is actually just a political anti climate change view.
Obviously nowhere near as bad, but the critical point is it is human nature for people including lawyers and scientists to allow personal politics to influence professional opinion, so we have to be on the watch for it.
Not much to disagree with there but I do need to draw one thing out into the light. That someone who is an expert in one field isn't necessarily an expert in another field is obviously true. My experience of Java programming doesn't mean I know the first thing about Roman history. However, as it happens, I do know a bit about Roman history too. The point is, it's wrong to overcorrect. Just because someone is a scientist / footballer / lawyer, it doesn't mean that they are politically clueless. They might have thought very deeply about the wider implications of the professionally acquired knowledge.
Lastly, I can't help feeling like being an expert in one thing makes you more reliable than someone who is an expert in nothing.
Too often experts in disparate fields involved in SAGE and iSAGE are given credence way outside their field of expertise. As an example, Carole Mundell, an astrophysicist at my Uni is on SAGE. She clearly is not an expert in viruses. Lots of the iSAGE crowd are not experts in what Joe/Joanna Public think they are. Susan Michie is a classic - a pyschologist. I suspect that most seeing her would expect her to be an expert in disease. She isn't.
Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.
It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
Yes.
And have I missed people saying that lawyers should keep out of politics? Or do people just not tend to say that?
People say all the time the law should not a continuation of politics by other means. And it's fairly easy to spot lawyers with a continual political axe to grind from a measured legal opinion which might also happen to grind an axe.
These things are grey areas and professional background doesnt and shouldn't preclude political commentary, but people's expertise even in their fields is very precise, and I don't see what's unreasonable about noting that there is a tendency to conflate any comment on a subject from a notable lawyer or scientist as equally relevant and that that is not always the case - it's on the same spectrum as those fringe 'scientists' who are not climate experts using 'I'm a scientist' to justify what is actually just a political anti climate change view.
Obviously nowhere near as bad, but the critical point is it is human nature for people including lawyers and scientists to allow personal politics to influence professional opinion, so we have to be on the watch for it.
Not much to disagree with there but I do need to draw one thing out into the light. That someone who is an expert in one field isn't necessarily an expert in another field is obviously true. My experience of Java programming doesn't mean I know the first thing about Roman history. However, as it happens, I do know a bit about Roman history too. The point is, it's wrong to overcorrect. Just because someone is a scientist / footballer / lawyer, it doesn't mean that they are politically clueless. They might have thought very deeply about the wider implications of the professionally acquired knowledge.
Lastly, I can't help feeling like being an expert in one thing makes you more reliable than someone who is an expert in nothing.
There is a long history to suggest being a true expert in one field can make someone a compete idiot in other fields.
If you cherry pick that history, yes.
For example, a number of Nobel Prize winning physicists argues in the 1940s onward that nuclear safety was not really required, that people should "man up" etc.
The fight between Adm. Rickover and the nuclear community was especially interesting. Rickover imposed safety for the US Navy against the advice of the scientists.
Because when it came to engineering safety they were out of their swim lane.
The people who had a really bad pandemic are the Oxbridge arts graduates in the media and government, usually self proclaimed kings of the universe, who found themselves off the pace intellectually and adrift, unable to ask intelligent questions. It was particularly fun to see PPE take on a new meaning.
PPE stands for Piss-Poor Economics, as all non-Oxford educated economists know.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Individual scientists have their own agendas. Susan Mickie for instance thinks government control of society is a good thing. Then that other guy who thinks that it is immoral to boost in the UK before the developing world is vaccinated.
It’s fine for them to have political views, but they are not part of their remit and if it is colouring their advice then it is them pushing an agenda
On an individual level, sure, but that's a different kettle of fish from the collective 'the science'. If individual scientists are pushing and agenda/answering questions put to them from with the benefit of their expertise to other individuals through the media, then what does it matter if they influence the behaviour of individuals who find their arguments persuasive? That's not Government policy, and their opinions don't have force of law.
As you pointed out, the Government gets a range of advice from scientists. As individuals they will have opinions, and they will interpret the same numbers differently. It's the job of ministers to make a decision. Where they go 'against the science', it's perfectly fine for scientists to point that out.
I think this distinction between political Vs scientific views is not a strong distinction in the minds of scientists. A scientists might think that the science suggests we should vaccinate the vulnerable globally, before moving onto less vulnerable populations in richer countries. Is that political, or is it scientific?
It becomes political when they hold up the decision making process because they aren’t getting their own way
Indeed. A minority of the JCVI held up reporting on boosters and child vaccination. They didn't present evidence that they were bad etc - they used the process and the wish for unanimity to attempt to control government policy.
In the end, the log jam was broken by Javid telling JCVI, not that he was going to over-rule them, but that if they didn't report, he would pass the decisions to the Chief Medical Officers of the nations of the UK.
The things to see here is that a scientific opinion was not being expressed by the scientists. They were deliberately not expressing an opinion.
I've seen, through the person I mentioned earlier, a summary of some evidence presented to JCVI (and also had a disucssion of it with that person before it was presented). These particular UK data, which were the best available at the time, were just not very definitive. Too much uncertainty in the data, particularly due to uncertainties in the numbers with any reactions to the vaccines and the numbers who had had Covid to judge the severity of Covid across the younger population, particularly long Covid symptoms which had not been very well collate at that point. It is clear that very few children get seriously ill from Covid.
So, on those data (JCVI will have had other data too, of course) as a scientist, I would not be able to come to a clear scientific view on vaccinated versus don't vaccinate for children. On a societal level, vaccination clearly made sense, but that was certainly not the question my colleague was asked for input on. I don't know the exact remit of JCVI on this, but if they were asked "does vaccination of an individual child reduce the expected harm to that child" then I can certainly understand why they would say we need to wait for more data. It's the only scientific response.
That doesn't mean I think it was right that child vaccinations were delayed - I don't and I would have had them offered as soon as we had the vaccines to do that group. But it's possible the JCVI were simply asked the wrong question, given too narrow a remit/no one in government had the balls to make the decision without the scientific backup.
JCVI wa using, among other things a very low estimate for the number of child infection. When that estimate was exceeded in the real world, why did they carry on using it? It wasn't given to them as a paramater...
I still don't know of any of the assembled medics and scientists who pop up as talking heads who want "lock down forever" as the more excitable prayees suggest on here.
Really? Well ask them when mask mandates should end. Some would like them forever, to deal not just with covid, but flu, colds etc. Any of them that still think zero covid is possible. Ask what is their end state.
Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December. On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice. What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
Individual scientists have their own agendas. Susan Mickie for instance thinks government control of society is a good thing. Then that other guy who thinks that it is immoral to boost in the UK before the developing world is vaccinated.
It’s fine for them to have political views, but they are not part of their remit and if it is colouring their advice then it is them pushing an agenda
On an individual level, sure, but that's a different kettle of fish from the collective 'the science'. If individual scientists are pushing and agenda/answering questions put to them from with the benefit of their expertise to other individuals through the media, then what does it matter if they influence the behaviour of individuals who find their arguments persuasive? That's not Government policy, and their opinions don't have force of law.
As you pointed out, the Government gets a range of advice from scientists. As individuals they will have opinions, and they will interpret the same numbers differently. It's the job of ministers to make a decision. Where they go 'against the science', it's perfectly fine for scientists to point that out.
I think this distinction between political Vs scientific views is not a strong distinction in the minds of scientists. A scientists might think that the science suggests we should vaccinate the vulnerable globally, before moving onto less vulnerable populations in richer countries. Is that political, or is it scientific?
It becomes political when they hold up the decision making process because they aren’t getting their own way
Indeed. A minority of the JCVI held up reporting on boosters and child vaccination. They didn't present evidence that they were bad etc - they used the process and the wish for unanimity to attempt to control government policy.
In the end, the log jam was broken by Javid telling JCVI, not that he was going to over-rule them, but that if they didn't report, he would pass the decisions to the Chief Medical Officers of the nations of the UK.
The things to see here is that a scientific opinion was not being expressed by the scientists. They were deliberately not expressing an opinion.
It was quite a good exercise in the end because Javid laid down the law and now the JCVI have dropped all notion of being able to hold up decision making.
I suspect (in line with my othe post) that many were relieved/quite happy that a politician stepped up to take a political decision without demanding scientific cover that didn't really exist. If 'the science' doesn't give a clear answer then someone else has to make a decision.
I'm quite pro Javid since he's taken over.
I agree. His previous cabinet stay was far less impressive. Credit where it is due.
Comments
This doesn't happen so much in the UK because if you have the ability to form a government, you generally also have a majority to pass legislation, so you can change the law instead of trying to stretch it. But when we had a weird case where the PM was trying to do things that Parliament wouldn't vote for, as we did over Brexit, we also saw the PM overreaching (by proroguing parliament) and the courts slapping him down.
No, scrub that.
Have they ever delivered anything?
Or are they just a vehicle for stock boosters to bilk the naive and unwary?
I think he believed there would be 2m dead in the UK but the end of 2020
I wonder what happened to him?
We have a free press.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/30/life-tragic-death-john-eyers-fitness-fanatic-who-refused-covid-vaccine
Anti-vaxxers really are selfish little sh*ts.
On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.
Ultimately it's down to health and scientific advisers to give their perspective on what they think would help from the point of view of disease control - but for politicians to balance this against wider economic and social questions. The buck for the over-reaction ultimately stops with the Prime Minister - although, setting aside your opinion of the current incumbent, one has to have a certain amount of sympathy for our leaders in all of this. They are bound to upset a large chunk of opinion regardless of what they do - and especially if they choose not to follow whichever expert opinion any given media outlet has decided it would like to back.
The main headline on the website of one Opposition-friendly newspaper after the press conference yesterday afternoon was, effectively, "Boris Johnson ignores expert advice." The expert being, of course, Dr Harries, who was the particular expert whose opinion was obviously considered more valid than that of anybody else in the world that day, because the Government had rejected it (whereas both the Labour Party and said publication itself are mad keen on pushing as many miserable impositions on people's lives as possible.) You can guarantee that, if the Government had decided to bring in masks everywhere and working from home, its opponents would have banked the concession, found a far more extreme opinion to emphasise, and moved on to demanding a full lockdown by the end of the week.
All of that having been said, I can see where the frustration of people who have opinions like this originates from, because we do indeed need to learn not to keep having a massive panic every time this wretched virus mutates, or else we shall be stuck permanently in this nightmare situation where we never know which freedoms we are to be permitted to retain and which will be taken away from one day to the next. "Living with the virus" does not mean nailing a bloody gag to everybody's face every single time a virologist somewhere has an attack of the collywobbles, from now until the heat death of the universe. At some point, and soon, this has to stop.
What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?
Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
OT, Monbiot is bracingly and completely correct this morning that the extra amendments bolted on to the policing bill, and completely missed by the media, as well as parts of the original bill itself, are a threat to all of us and our basic democratic rights.
Most concerning of all, among many concerns, is the open door to making any noisy, rather than violent, protest - and even helping to publicise such a protest online, by retweeting it, for instance - an arrestable offence.
Very concerning stuff, and as so often in the last two decades, the British media, claiming to be fearless, is asleep at the wheel .
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/01/imprisoned-51-weeks-protesting-britain-police-state
"Any significant reduction in protection against infection could still result in a very large wave of infections. This would in turn lead to a potentially high number of hospitalisations even with protection against severe disease being less affected."
Scientific advisers, as opposed to scientific researchers, have had a bloody awful pandemic.
As I posted upthread scaling down our family's celebrations will result in disappointment for several, but which is the wiser course?
We take a lot for granted, but have come a very long way.
https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1465813823814836230
In summary, if these figures are correct the Tories are fucked.
In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
https://www.racingpost.com/news/william-hill-punter-scoops-massive-281000-payout-from-7-bet/524765
As usual I just want some consistency. Had they said from the start that the advisers advise and they decide that would have been fine. Instead it was "we're following the science" until they weren't. And now that the science is saying do things they don't want to do, the science instead of being followed must have a nefarious "axe to grind"
1. having a Constitution as a single, revered, document means that it is easier in some ways for judges to provide a reasoned justification for overturning executive decisions and congressional laws.
2. it is literally in US (i.e. federal) judges' job description (via the Judicial Branch Powers) to provide a check and balance to the powers of Congress and the Executive, that is to strike down Presidential decisions and Congressional laws either in whole or in part if deemed unconstitutional. I am not sure that is the case for most judges in the UK (the British Supreme Court was created after I left the UK)
I have a mid probationary review with someone on Friday. Need to convey the message they need a course correction. Ugh.
The biggest judicial powergrab in history.
That's if his stories are true. If they're not, then he's even worse...
It’s fine for them to have political views, but they are not part of their remit and if it is colouring their advice then it is them pushing an agenda
Mark Meadows also writes that though he knew each candidate was required “to test negative for the virus within seventy two hours of the start time … Nothing was going to stop [Trump] from going out there”.
Trump, Meadows says in the book, returned a negative result from a different test shortly after the positive.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/01/trump-tested-positive-covid-before-biden-debate-chief-staff-mark-meadows-book
Your error is to believe there is a 'scientist' agenda. There is not. There are personal agendas, which the person attempts to boost through, most unscientifically, labelling themselves a 'scientist' and wrapping their rationale in selective use of facts and science.
EXPRESS: @RishiSunak : my actions prove I’m a low tax Tory #TomorrowsPapersToday
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1465812566198861829?s=20
It feels like Labour are getting themselves together in a big way. Things must have been happening behind the scenes. I don't know what but you can sense it. Could 2024 be 1997 revisited? It's got a few of the ingredients not least a rancid Tory government and a rejuvenated opposition.
As you pointed out, the Government gets a range of advice from scientists. As individuals they will have opinions, and they will interpret the same numbers differently. It's the job of ministers to make a decision. Where they go 'against the science', it's perfectly fine for scientists to point that out.
I think this distinction between political Vs scientific views is not a strong distinction in the minds of scientists. A scientists might think that the science suggests we should vaccinate the vulnerable globally, before moving onto less vulnerable populations in richer countries. Is that political, or is it scientific?
EDIT: More seriously, it is again not wrong for lawyers to have political views, or even to use the law to derive their political opinions. It would be the mis-application of the law combined with reliance of the trust people have in them to understand the law on legal issues that the public cannot be expected to know that would be objectionable.
The issue with law and science is where it becomes an appeal to authority based on the person being a lawyer or scientist even if their personal view may not have the authority of consensus or evidence. It might, but its often assumed and becomes 'scientists say' not 'this scientist says X because y and that's why they are right'.
Many are quite cautious and see this, understandably, from a public health perspective and therefore more hawkish on restrictions, masks etc as these are the tools to reduce spread. Reducing spread of disease is, generally, the reason most of them got into science. It's more of a focus than the other societal issues, such as economy, importance to people of socialising etc.
If I worked with economists, I suspect they'd be more comparatively more concerned about destroying our economy. Mental health specialists would have a different viewpoint.
It's one of the reasons it's important the government has a balanced team of advisors considering all the issues.
As TimT says, everyone has their personal biases too, political biases etc. Some would rubbish a policy from Johnson but be more accepting of the same from Sturgeon for example, because she gives the impression of having thought about it. All academics are also raging pinko commie lefties obviously
*the one I know better was of the view keep things tight pre-vaccine but open up after, as long as hospitalisations remained manageable because "it ain't going to get any better than this"
^this person does think the evidence of vaccine benefit at the individual level for children is uncertain - vaccine probably outweighed risks, but you can't be too definitive, but should also consider benefits to kids of a not locked-down society. Given low risks, that persons personal view was to offer the vaccine, but not really push either way. Also very much against masks around young children, for development, pro-masks for adults in adult only/older child settings.
If you want to minimise harm in your country, then you might take a different view. And minimising hamr in your own country is quite possibly the right thing to do - looking after those you are supposed to be working for as a politician.
But @OldKingCole’s original contention was that scientists have “no axe to grind”. I disagree with that, even though I have no issue with them having axes or, even, grinding them
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59485586
Apparently it took only two days for the private detective hired by the TV producer, four decades after the conviction, to produce evidence that the conviction was unsound.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/23/alice-sebold-1981-rape-conviction-overturned.
I am very much for scientists, engineers, doctors, economists, anyone having political views and participating in the political process. I am also very much for them having honest disagreements on both politics and their professional discipline. This is not the issue.
The issue is when someone breaches trust (by using the label scientist, lawyer, economist, whatever to create the sense of authoritative knowledge on some more arcane issue) by deliberately misusing the discipline in question (science, law, whatever) to bend the logic to arrive at their predetermined political bias.
These things are grey areas and professional background doesnt and shouldn't preclude political commentary, but people's expertise even in their fields is very precise, and I don't see what's unreasonable about noting that there is a tendency to conflate any comment on a subject from a notable lawyer or scientist as equally relevant and that that is not always the case - it's on the same spectrum as those fringe 'scientists' who are not climate experts using 'I'm a scientist' to justify what is actually just a political anti climate change view.
Obviously nowhere near as bad, but the critical point is it is human nature for people including lawyers and scientists to allow personal politics to influence professional opinion, so we have to be on the watch for it.
In the end, the log jam was broken by Javid telling JCVI, not that he was going to over-rule them, but that if they didn't report, he would pass the decisions to the Chief Medical Officers of the nations of the UK.
The things to see here is that a scientific opinion was not being expressed by the scientists. They were deliberately not expressing an opinion.
Mr. Max, the journalists, especially of the political variety, have a stunning lack of expertise or even basic understanding of almost everything. The vast majority are shallow sensationalists.
Edited extra bit: or simply regurgitate the political consensus/party lines.
Johnson really has bet the house on Omicron being either mild or the slayer of Delta. To an untrained eye like mine at present it looks like a great call, although that might be part wishful thinking.
As for the hapless, useless Starmer who you are relieved today, is nowhere near the levers of government, I believe his response is politically rather astute. He has focused on foreign travel and in particular testing overseas prior to the flight home. That seems like an easy win if Johnson has called it wrong, and a "no harm done" if he hasn't.
Why should that erode trust?
Of more concern is the criminalisation of peripheral activity relating to such protests; and indeed the criminalisation of certain forms of political expression. People are getting long jail sentences for little other than associating with banned political groups. This ties in with the broad utopian impulse to make people safe by criminalising hate and abuse; driven by an apparent political consensus of left and right.
Overall these developments are concerning, but they are part of a bigger picture and it is incorrect to characterise it all as being solely driven by the right.
NS worked out well enough (25% profit whatever the outcome; I caught a peak for selling although that has now been exceeded in last few days).
On OB&S I only caught a little movement to Lab, so I'm break-even on a Con hold (or anyone else except Lab) and 40% up if Lab win. I don't expect to make anything on that, but didn't think the peanuts from a return either way were worth it. I've also got RefUK to beat 5%, which I'm fairly confident on and haven't traded at all.
(Or welcome to summer if you are south of the equator.)
The research, published in Frontiers in Medicine, suggests that serious coronavirus infections may significantly damage long-term health, showing the importance of vaccination.
The increased risk of dying was greater for patients under 65, and only 20% of the severe Covid-19 patients who died did so because of typical Covid complications, such as respiratory failure.
So, on those data (JCVI will have had other data too, of course) as a scientist, I would not be able to come to a clear scientific view on vaccinated versus don't vaccinate for children. On a societal level, vaccination clearly made sense, but that was certainly not the question my colleague was asked for input on. I don't know the exact remit of JCVI on this, but if they were asked "does vaccination of an individual child reduce the expected harm to that child" then I can certainly understand why they would say we need to wait for more data. It's the only scientific response.
That doesn't mean I think it was right that child vaccinations were delayed - I don't and I would have had them offered as soon as we had the vaccines to do that group. But it's possible the JCVI were simply asked the wrong question, given too narrow a remit/no one in government had the balls to make the decision without the scientific backup.
Logically speaking, you'd think you'd be right. Having the discipline to learn a field and apply critical thinking skills should be transferable to other fields. The problem is that when we become expert in our given field, we become over-confident in our abilities in general, and in particular how expert we are in other fields.
There have been numerous social psychology controlled experiments that have shown non-experts to make better decisions than experts in fields outside the experts' domain.
I'm quite pro Javid since he's taken over.
Lots of the iSAGE crowd are not experts in what Joe/Joanna Public think they are. Susan Michie is a classic - a pyschologist. I suspect that most seeing her would expect her to be an expert in disease. She isn't.
The fight between Adm. Rickover and the nuclear community was especially interesting. Rickover imposed safety for the US Navy against the advice of the scientists.
Because when it came to engineering safety they were out of their swim lane.
Credit where it is due.