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.
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.
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.
Good reply. Now, tell me, have you described the experimental results correctly? That is, is the correlation between out-field expertise and overconfidence causal in the way you describe? Or is it that high self-confidence is a confounding factor, in that it carries to expertise when you focus on one subject? I can totally believe that plunging into new territory is likely to trip up the overconfident in the early stages, but I still have a feeling that people who have proven analytical skills in one territory can then overtake the non-experts as they spend more time exploring the novel subject.
So are those decision making experiments you describe about initial and early contact with new subjects, or do they cover prolonged exposure to a new subject?
The implications of the answer to that speak to my point about people being experts in one field but having thought a lot about another (as opposed to just having plunged blindly into a new subject last week).
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
Where is my liberty to live a long life when an anti-vaxxer has my hi dependency bed because he chose liberty over vaccination? I'm with the he Austrians here- stuff liberty.
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.
Thanks for providing an example of cherry picking, but I already understood the point I was making
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.
Is there any other kind ?
Ouch! Economics is okay as long as you don't take it too literally. Whenever I'm tempted to be too harsh on my adopted discipline though, I think about the kind of illogical, ill-informed and confused thinking on economic matters that non-economists fall into, and that makes me think that I must have learned something useful along the way.
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
Indeed, so if the unvaccinated face a tax like smokers do then that's a resource matter not a liberty one, isn't it?
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."
There's nothing (to me) actually controversial in the quoted parts of the leaked minutes: - Omicron may lead to a wave of infections (Yes, from what we know, that's likely) - It likely at least partly escapes vaccine immunity (Yes, also appears very likely from what we know) - If there is a significant wave of hospitalisations then restrictions may be needed (Yes - because given we're well vaccinated already, if that's not enough then we likely would need restrictions, unless boosters really help a lot. but there is a big 'if' about whether Omicron will lead to a big wave of hospitalisations, it depends how much protection we get from vaccines and how sever Omicron is in general - Restrictions started earlier are more effective (Yes, we know this. However, restrictions started unecessarily ar hugely damaging for no benefit, so it's not an obvious call).
Maybe I read this differently to others, but I'd expect SAGE to be making all these obvious points. Given we don't know the severity and level of vaccine escape yet, the politicians have to take a gamble on whether to restrict no in case it's bad (and cause the damage restrictions cause) or wait a bit longer for more data (with the risk of a worse wave/longer restrictions if it is bad). The science doesn't yet know what to do, so the politicians have to make the call.
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
Yes but it is fair that those that take an action that causes the rest of society to be put at significant risk is a reason to restrict liberty. Drink driving is an example. The drink driver in a remote village may argue that to prevent him having three or four pints and then driving home is his liberal right. Society decides not and is likely to lock him up if he kills or injures someone.
I think that mandatory vaccination of people is a step too far, but significantly reducing the rights of those who irrationally refuse vaccination should be introduced for an emergency period of at least another year.
Noticed a lot of discussion in a previous thread about banking regulation, the RBS - ABN AMRO disaster etc. What is overlooked is that there was criminality in the lead up to these disasters, criminality which the authorities were aware of - or should have been - and about which they did diddly squat.
The regulation was poor and failed, yes. But there was malice too. And the regulators didn't just fail to regulate properly, they failed to investigate criminal behaviour and stop it when they had the chance. Had they done so, things might not have got as bad as they did. The regulators have not really had the reckoning for those failures which they should have, despite the FCA now being on its umpteenth reorganisation.
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.
Good reply. Now, tell me, have you described the experimental results correctly? That is, is the correlation between out-field expertise and overconfidence causal in the way you describe? Or is it that high self-confidence is a confounding factor, in that it carries to expertise when you focus on one subject? I can totally believe that plunging into new territory is likely to trip up the overconfident in the early stages, but I still have a feeling that people who have proven analytical skills in one territory can then overtake the non-experts as they spend more time exploring the novel subject.
So are those decision making experiments you describe about initial and early contact with new subjects, or do they cover prolonged exposure to a new subject?
The implications of the answer to that speak to my point about people being experts in one field but having thought a lot about another (as opposed to just having plunged blindly into a new subject last week).
Interesting discussion. From my limited experience, the problem of experts in another field entering politics is not that they are bad at developing new skills, but rather that they cling to their area of expertise as their self-definition. I knew successful doctors and businesspeople who weren't really very good at being MPs, as they still saw themselves as doctors or businesspeople bringing their expertise to politics, rather than people with an interesting hinterland adopting a new profession. It was easier for me as my IT skills were obviously not relevant to most areas of politics, so I needed consciously to say "OK, now I'm doing something new."
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.
Seem to remember reading that Jimmy Carter was a member of the Rickover team and held the Admiral in very great respect.
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.
Yes, this speaks to public misunderstanding of what people know. But it's hardly unique to the domain. People on here seem baffled when journalists don't get basic science, or that politicians haven't the first clue about football, and so on. I'm not saying we should give someone credence outside their zone of expertise, I'm only saying that we should not expect monastic silence from them. If Rishi Sunak wants to tell me which left-back England should play, I'll listen in the same way that I'd listen to the bloke in the pub who knows nothing about anything. I'm not going to say "shut up, stay in your lane" because it just might be that he has an interesting insight in a hitherto unexpected field.
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.
Thanks for providing an example of cherry picking, but I already understood the point I was making
Your point seemed to be about by being selective - "cherry picking" - was the way that scientists could look foolish outside their domain.
The example I gave was of undoubted geniuses making an undoubted and prolonged mistake, when working outside their area of expertise.
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.
My educational psychologist granddaughter is very sad that she now has to wear a mask, although she will, at least most of the time. She needs to talk to children, often children with all sorts of difficulties, and they need to see her smile. However, she recognises that there's a case for the greater good of all.
On topic, I'm not sure that 74% is too far off the mark, especially as the results in the two seats will be correlated. I think the Lib Dem's by-election campaigning skills mean that the NS result is more likely to go against the Tories, but if the Tories hold NS they will almost certainly hold OB&S too, since a victory in NS will mean their vote is holding up. In other words, the probability of holding NS will be fairly similar to the probability of holding both seats. And NS would normally be a safe Tory seat. So I would have thought something in the region of 70% looks about right for a Tory hold in both seats. It should be the clear favourite as an outcome, but equally if it didn't happen I wouldn't fall off my chair in shock.
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.
A mask. Is not under any rational definition. "Lockdown".
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.
Seem to remember reading that Jimmy Carter was a member of the Rickover team and held the Admiral in very great respect.
From Wiki's entry on Carter (at 97 the longest lived of all US presidents):
"In 1952, Carter began an association with the Navy's fledgling nuclear submarine program, led then by Captain Hyman G. Rickover. Rickover had high standards and demands for his men and machines, and Carter later said that, next to his parents, Rickover had the greatest influence on his life.[10] He was sent to the Naval Reactors Branch of the Atomic Energy Commission in Washington, D.C. for three month temporary duty, while Rosalynn moved with their children to Schenectady, New York. On December 12, 1952, an accident with the experimental NRX reactor at Atomic Energy of Canada's Chalk River Laboratories caused a partial meltdown, resulting in millions of liters of radioactive water flooding the reactor building's basement. This left the reactor's core ruined.[11] Carter was ordered to Chalk River to lead a U.S. maintenance crew that joined other American and Canadian service personnel to assist in the shutdown of the reactor.[12] The painstaking process required each team member to don protective gear and be lowered individually into the reactor for a few minutes at a time, limiting their exposure to radioactivity while they disassembled the crippled reactor. During and after his presidency, Carter said that his experience at Chalk River had shaped his views on atomic energy and led him to cease development of a neutron bomb."
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.
A mask. Is not under any rational definition. "Lockdown".
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.
I'm not defending any individual talking heads. But in a pandemic where you need to manage public behaviour and actions, why is it wring to have a psychologist on the advisory team?
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.
Seem to remember reading that Jimmy Carter was a member of the Rickover team and held the Admiral in very great respect.
Carter was an officer in the US Navy Nuclear power program - would have commanded a submarine, but for having to go home to take over the family farm, when his farther died.
Rickover had (and has) a complicated reputation. He made the US Navy nuclear program extremely safe. He was also very problematic to deal with and is a good example of someone who should have retired at the set age, rather than trying to go on for forever.
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.
A mask. Is not under any rational definition. "Lockdown".
As I said...
It is an infringement on civil liberties though.
I accept that. My point is the screeching that the evil scientists / medics want us to "lock down forever". A mask is not lockdown. South of the wall you've just had mask restrictions reinstated. You are not "locked down" just as we have not been north of the wall where the restrictions were never lifted.
On topic, I'm not sure that 74% is too far off the mark, especially as the results in the two seats will be correlated. I think the Lib Dem's by-election campaigning skills mean that the NS result is more likely to go against the Tories, but if the Tories hold NS they will almost certainly hold OB&S too, since a victory in NS will mean their vote is holding up. In other words, the probability of holding NS will be fairly similar to the probability of holding both seats. And NS would normally be a safe Tory seat. So I would have thought something in the region of 70% looks about right for a Tory hold in both seats. It should be the clear favourite as an outcome, but equally if it didn't happen I wouldn't fall off my chair in shock.
Update, looking at that NS polling on the next thread, maybe OGH is right after all. Doesn't look good for the Tories.
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.
I'm not defending any individual talking heads. But in a pandemic where you need to manage public behaviour and actions, why is it wring to have a psychologist on the advisory team?
Its not, but when that psychologist starts mouthing off in public that her advice isn't being taken on something that isn't her field of expertise then it should be caveated with a big pinch of salt - not presented as her being the expert that must be listened to.
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.
Having a psychologist on SAGE is extremely sensible. Reactions to something such as a pandemic are not only fundamentally medical but also psychological. Fear, irrational response, overreaction, underreaction, herd mentality, conspiracy theory etc. All these things can have huge implications for policy.
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.
A mask. Is not under any rational definition. "Lockdown".
As I said...
It is an infringement on civil liberties though.
So is the requirement for Primary School teachers, or anyone indeed, to wear clothes. If you don't want to see my tackle you can stay indoors. Your free choice.
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.
A mask. Is not under any rational definition. "Lockdown".
As I said...
It is an infringement on civil liberties though.
I accept that. My point is the screeching that the evil scientists / medics want us to "lock down forever". A mask is not lockdown. South of the wall you've just had mask restrictions reinstated. You are not "locked down" just as we have not been north of the wall where the restrictions were never lifted.
I think the Lib Dems will win North Shopshire. And I'm normally a favourites backer in stuff like this.
For the Lib Dems to win Chesham & Amersham was one thing, Remainy, highly-educated, big local NIMBY issue, but North Shropshire would be something else.
It would indicate there are more important things than Brexit to the voters.
Radio Scotland phone in has been fun this morning.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
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.
My educational psychologist granddaughter is very sad that she now has to wear a mask, although she will, at least most of the time. She needs to talk to children, often children with all sorts of difficulties, and they need to see her smile. However, she recognises that there's a case for the greater good of all.
On a very slightly related note I see that this morning on the Today programme Gary Richardson mispronounced one of the daily tips running in the 12.40 at Haydock as Seymour Cox (should have been Seymour Sox). I would be 99% sure that was just the sort of thing that the owners wanted to happen.
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.
Good reply. Now, tell me, have you described the experimental results correctly? That is, is the correlation between out-field expertise and overconfidence causal in the way you describe? Or is it that high self-confidence is a confounding factor, in that it carries to expertise when you focus on one subject? I can totally believe that plunging into new territory is likely to trip up the overconfident in the early stages, but I still have a feeling that people who have proven analytical skills in one territory can then overtake the non-experts as they spend more time exploring the novel subject.
So are those decision making experiments you describe about initial and early contact with new subjects, or do they cover prolonged exposure to a new subject?
The implications of the answer to that speak to my point about people being experts in one field but having thought a lot about another (as opposed to just having plunged blindly into a new subject last week).
Sorry, rushing out so don't have time for a full reply. But Cyclefree's points apply. I think if you approach things with both a knowledge of our subconscious tendency to be over-confident, and a humble approach to knowledge and learning, then yes, you would be right. An expert in one field does have the tools to rapidly acquire a working knowledge in another field. But true expertise, regardless of the person, takes years to acquire.
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.
A mask. Is not under any rational definition. "Lockdown".
As I said...
You love to play with words, its part of your charm. Define lockdown. Some would say it only means what was enacted in Wuhan at the start - physically welding people in homes. Others feel that almost any restriction is an infringement tantamount to lockdown.
Do you accept that some of the talking heads would like to keep some restrictions essentially permanently? I accept that is not 'lockdown', but its a pretty big step on from where we were as a society in Dec 2019.
The last week has crystallised my thinking a bit on uk politics. I don’t really care who is leading the Tory party at the next election, I will vote for them (first time since 2015) no matter what, because it’s clear Starmer’s Labour has lined itself up as the Lockdown Party. Meanwhile the government hasn’t done everything right (far from it) but I do believe there is reluctance in the Tory party to impose restrictions.
This won’t be the last Greek letter we all hear about and there are plenty of other alphabets to use thereafter. And of course, plenty of pale horses sleeping in the zoonotic virus stable. Those that think covid won’t be key issue at the next election are most likely letting their optimism get in the way.
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.
Yes, I think the 28 day figures underestimate significantly. Covid inpatients go home with significant long term problems.
Comments
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.
Now, tell me, have you described the experimental results correctly? That is, is the correlation between out-field expertise and overconfidence causal in the way you describe? Or is it that high self-confidence is a confounding factor, in that it carries to expertise when you focus on one subject? I can totally believe that plunging into new territory is likely to trip up the overconfident in the early stages, but I still have a feeling that people who have proven analytical skills in one territory can then overtake the non-experts as they spend more time exploring the novel subject.
So are those decision making experiments you describe about initial and early contact with new subjects, or do they cover prolonged exposure to a new subject?
The implications of the answer to that speak to my point about people being experts in one field but having thought a lot about another (as opposed to just having plunged blindly into a new subject last week).
Economics is okay as long as you don't take it too literally. Whenever I'm tempted to be too harsh on my adopted discipline though, I think about the kind of illogical, ill-informed and confused thinking on economic matters that non-economists fall into, and that makes me think that I must have learned something useful along the way.
- Omicron may lead to a wave of infections (Yes, from what we know, that's likely)
- It likely at least partly escapes vaccine immunity (Yes, also appears very likely from what we know)
- If there is a significant wave of hospitalisations then restrictions may be needed (Yes - because given we're well vaccinated already, if that's not enough then we likely would need restrictions, unless boosters really help a lot. but there is a big 'if' about whether Omicron will lead to a big wave of hospitalisations, it depends how much protection we get from vaccines and how sever Omicron is in general
- Restrictions started earlier are more effective (Yes, we know this. However, restrictions started unecessarily ar hugely damaging for no benefit, so it's not an obvious call).
Maybe I read this differently to others, but I'd expect SAGE to be making all these obvious points. Given we don't know the severity and level of vaccine escape yet, the politicians have to take a gamble on whether to restrict no in case it's bad (and cause the damage restrictions cause) or wait a bit longer for more data (with the risk of a worse wave/longer restrictions if it is bad). The science doesn't yet know what to do, so the politicians have to make the call.
I think that mandatory vaccination of people is a step too far, but significantly reducing the rights of those who irrationally refuse vaccination should be introduced for an emergency period of at least another year.
The regulation was poor and failed, yes. But there was malice too. And the regulators didn't just fail to regulate properly, they failed to investigate criminal behaviour and stop it when they had the chance. Had they done so, things might not have got as bad as they did. The regulators have not really had the reckoning for those failures which they should have, despite the FCA now being on its umpteenth reorganisation.
But I was about C+A too.
I'm not saying we should give someone credence outside their zone of expertise, I'm only saying that we should not expect monastic silence from them. If Rishi Sunak wants to tell me which left-back England should play, I'll listen in the same way that I'd listen to the bloke in the pub who knows nothing about anything. I'm not going to say "shut up, stay in your lane" because it just might be that he has an interesting insight in a hitherto unexpected field.
The example I gave was of undoubted geniuses making an undoubted and prolonged mistake, when working outside their area of expertise.
However, she recognises that there's a case for the greater good of all.
Is not under any rational definition.
"Lockdown".
As I said...
"In 1952, Carter began an association with the Navy's fledgling nuclear submarine program, led then by Captain Hyman G. Rickover. Rickover had high standards and demands for his men and machines, and Carter later said that, next to his parents, Rickover had the greatest influence on his life.[10] He was sent to the Naval Reactors Branch of the Atomic Energy Commission in Washington, D.C. for three month temporary duty, while Rosalynn moved with their children to Schenectady, New York. On December 12, 1952, an accident with the experimental NRX reactor at Atomic Energy of Canada's Chalk River Laboratories caused a partial meltdown, resulting in millions of liters of radioactive water flooding the reactor building's basement. This left the reactor's core ruined.[11] Carter was ordered to Chalk River to lead a U.S. maintenance crew that joined other American and Canadian service personnel to assist in the shutdown of the reactor.[12] The painstaking process required each team member to don protective gear and be lowered individually into the reactor for a few minutes at a time, limiting their exposure to radioactivity while they disassembled the crippled reactor. During and after his presidency, Carter said that his experience at Chalk River had shaped his views on atomic energy and led him to cease development of a neutron bomb."
Rickover had (and has) a complicated reputation. He made the US Navy nuclear program extremely safe. He was also very problematic to deal with and is a good example of someone who should have retired at the set age, rather than trying to go on for forever.
Nobody wants lockdown forever.
If you don't want to see my tackle you can stay indoors.
Your free choice.
It would indicate there are more important things than Brexit to the voters.
Callers flat out refusing to cancel any Christmas plans, asking how many more variants there will be and whether this will the case every Christmas for evermore.
Virologist comes on and responds with zero-covid strategy: "we must stop this variant in its tracks".
"We should not learn to live with it. We must eradicate it now"
Long live puerility!
Do you accept that some of the talking heads would like to keep some restrictions essentially permanently? I accept that is not 'lockdown', but its a pretty big step on from where we were as a society in Dec 2019.
This won’t be the last Greek letter we all hear about and there are plenty of other alphabets to use thereafter. And of course, plenty of pale horses sleeping in the zoonotic virus stable. Those that think covid won’t be key issue at the next election are most likely letting their optimism get in the way.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213260021003830