Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

It’s surely less than a 74% chance that the CON will win both? – politicalbetting.com

2

Comments

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited December 2021
    Pulpstar said:

    Judge blocks Biden's COVID-19 vaccine rule for healthcare workers across the U.S. - Reuters

    The amount of political power US judges have is absolubtely crackers.
    TBF the other thing that happens a lot is that administrations overreach the powers that Congress intended to give them, when that happens the courts are the only way to make them follow the law.

    This doesn't happen so much in the UK because if you have the ability to form a government, you generally also have a majority to pass legislation, so you can change the law instead of trying to stretch it. But when we had a weird case where the PM was trying to do things that Parliament wouldn't vote for, as we did over Brexit, we also saw the PM overreaching (by proroguing parliament) and the courts slapping him down.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some chatter about the partial reinstatement of the Valneva contract:
    https://dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/2021/11/valneva-order-may-be-reinstated-to-fight-omicron/?s=09

    Not the worst idea in the current circumstances, since it’s differentiated from the other vaccines, and recent data looked quite good.

    Fingers crossed, it seemed like an odd decision anyway. If we were going to cancel any orders it would be Novavax, they've singularly failed to launch and get their vaccine approved. We said the AZ data was messy and they were lucky to get approval so quickly, Novavax seems like a disaster of both the trial and the manufacturing.
    Has NovaVax in their long and “eventful” history ever delivered anything on time and to spec?

    No, scrub that.

    Have they ever delivered anything?

    Or are they just a vehicle for stock boosters to bilk the naive and unwary?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I’m with @LostPassword . To my eye, no western democracy will make vaccines mandatory. We are not going to send 6’ 3” armed nurses with syringes around people’s houses with battering rams. There might be fines, or tax disincentives. But that’s no different to discouraging cigarettes and alcohol with the use of financial penalties.

    Austria and Greece say Hi
    The policies look like they will be quite different in Austria and Greece. A €100 a month fine (as proposed in Greece) would be affordable by many. The proposed fine in Austria would be 12 times higher, which makes it completely different.

    Then you have the unanswered question of whether non-payment of the fines would ultimately be an imprisonable criminal offence or not. Simply waving the word "mandatory" around is misleading.
    If the early SA and Israeli data are verified - ie this variant is quite unpleasant for the vaxxed (twice as many breakthroughs) and a fucking horror show for the unvaxxed, then I reckon many countries will go a distance beyond what Greece and Austria are doing. If you want a functioning health system you need 95% of your people jabbed, and that’s that

    Letting people wander around unjabbed now is arguably like letting people drive around after 3 bottles of Rioja. What do we do to those people? We put them in jail
    We don’t outlaw drinking though which is the equivalent of what you are suggesting
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    edited December 2021
    Isn't it a bit strange it's taken for granted that Labour will come third in North Shropshire when they've come second in every election since 1997 except one? (2010). They were quite a long way ahead of the LDs in 2019 and amassed 17,000 votes in 2017.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    glw said:

    Leon said:

    When it hits the poor and unvaxxed - and across Africa - with its insane transmissibility….

    This is now going beyond a global health emergency to a potential terminal nightmare. Vaccines seem to work, still, thank God but they will only work if everyone gets one

    20-30 years ago large scale PCR testing and gene sequencing would have been scarce and certainly unaffordable to use widely. We'd be flying blind through this pandemic. And you can forget having effective vaccines in just a year. Even 10 years ago most of these things would have proven much harder to do. In a way we are very lucky this is happening now.

    Even with our technological and scientific advances we are very fortunate that we didn't begin the pandemic with a Delta or Omicron.

    As it is I think the death toll from this pandemic now has a fair chance of exceeding the Spanish flu.
    Yes, absolutely

    It’s basic maths innit? Africa has largely avoided a huge wave, no one is sure why. Youth?

    This seems to be their wave, finally. It will sweep across Africa and it could kill tens of millions, putting it up there with Spanish Flu. I still hope to God I am wrong
    This is literally every night now. You get some booze inside you and become incapable of any rational discussion. The site just gets swamped by your apocalyptic hysteria. Every night. I’ll be back in the morning, when you are either absent, or sober.
    Jesus Christ I am entirely rational. I am lying in a hotel in Hereford simply crunching the numbers. They are inescapable

    Yes, they could all be wrong, but this is a numbers-based website.

    Compare it to an election. What we’re getting now is a sense of the postal votes and the first ballot boxes being opened. There is still a long way to go. But there is cause for Bufton Tufton MP for Complacenyshire to think Shit, I could lose this

    UNlike an election we can still change the result! Every indicator says: maximise your jab rate. Which is what the UKG is doing, I just think they need to go further, faster
    There used to be a poster on here, @eadric i think, who would make up numbers and call them “assumptions”.

    I think he believed there would be 2m dead in the UK but the end of 2020

    I wonder what happened to him?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Pagan2 said:

    Out of curiousity as I saw him comment upthread.

    @Dura_Ace apparently she wont get the vaccine as tested on animals I am told

    Do we then assume none of your cars are painted as I know for a fact all the chemicals in car paint have ld50 figures which means they have been tested on animals

    People FPT are saying they'd go veggie for a while if he got jabbed.

    Now, that's rewarding bad behaviour. Since the stick often works better than the carrot, I'll go the opposite way: Dura, if you don't get yourself jabbed, I'll have a delicious, mouth-watering bacon sandwich, or glistening rare steak, or a sublime chicken korma, every day until you do. I'll eat *more* meat than I normally do.

    There: think of the animals you'll save. ;)
    I considered having fois gras last night but ended up with a rather nice duck egg instead. All for @Dura_Ace
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Is it not irresponsible for the Labour Supporting Daily Mirror to run with this Boris story right now? So he had a works drinkies. Number ten say all guidelines were followed for such things, though it may have been a bit naughty. But more importantly, if further measures need to be introduced, which presumably being Labour the mirror will back, it needs people to follow them, which this story is undermining the likelihood of happening. Whatever argument they used to print to say it’s in national interest, It’s not in the National Interest for stories like that right now, in this difficult winter, undermining the governments virus fight no wonder other media organisations are not touching it. They should have held it back rather than undermine the country’s Covid measures shouldn’t they?

    Have a good night 🙋‍♀️

    Nah, this is fair game for a story.
    We have a free press.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,776
    Charles said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    glw said:

    Leon said:

    When it hits the poor and unvaxxed - and across Africa - with its insane transmissibility….

    This is now going beyond a global health emergency to a potential terminal nightmare. Vaccines seem to work, still, thank God but they will only work if everyone gets one

    20-30 years ago large scale PCR testing and gene sequencing would have been scarce and certainly unaffordable to use widely. We'd be flying blind through this pandemic. And you can forget having effective vaccines in just a year. Even 10 years ago most of these things would have proven much harder to do. In a way we are very lucky this is happening now.

    Even with our technological and scientific advances we are very fortunate that we didn't begin the pandemic with a Delta or Omicron.

    As it is I think the death toll from this pandemic now has a fair chance of exceeding the Spanish flu.
    Yes, absolutely

    It’s basic maths innit? Africa has largely avoided a huge wave, no one is sure why. Youth?

    This seems to be their wave, finally. It will sweep across Africa and it could kill tens of millions, putting it up there with Spanish Flu. I still hope to God I am wrong
    This is literally every night now. You get some booze inside you and become incapable of any rational discussion. The site just gets swamped by your apocalyptic hysteria. Every night. I’ll be back in the morning, when you are either absent, or sober.
    Jesus Christ I am entirely rational. I am lying in a hotel in Hereford simply crunching the numbers. They are inescapable

    Yes, they could all be wrong, but this is a numbers-based website.

    Compare it to an election. What we’re getting now is a sense of the postal votes and the first ballot boxes being opened. There is still a long way to go. But there is cause for Bufton Tufton MP for Complacenyshire to think Shit, I could lose this

    UNlike an election we can still change the result! Every indicator says: maximise your jab rate. Which is what the UKG is doing, I just think they need to go further, faster
    There used to be a poster on here, @eadric i think, who would make up numbers and call them “assumptions”.

    I think he believed there would be 2m dead in the UK but the end of 2020

    I wonder what happened to him?
    I'll have you know that over 200 million have died in the United Kingdom over the last... ooohhh... 5,000 years. So, if anything, @Leon underegged it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    glw said:

    Leon said:

    When it hits the poor and unvaxxed - and across Africa - with its insane transmissibility….

    This is now going beyond a global health emergency to a potential terminal nightmare. Vaccines seem to work, still, thank God but they will only work if everyone gets one

    20-30 years ago large scale PCR testing and gene sequencing would have been scarce and certainly unaffordable to use widely. We'd be flying blind through this pandemic. And you can forget having effective vaccines in just a year. Even 10 years ago most of these things would have proven much harder to do. In a way we are very lucky this is happening now.

    Even with our technological and scientific advances we are very fortunate that we didn't begin the pandemic with a Delta or Omicron.

    As it is I think the death toll from this pandemic now has a fair chance of exceeding the Spanish flu.
    Yes, absolutely

    It’s basic maths innit? Africa has largely avoided a huge wave, no one is sure why. Youth?

    This seems to be their wave, finally. It will sweep across Africa and it could kill tens of millions, putting it up there with Spanish Flu. I still hope to God I am wrong
    This is literally every night now. You get some booze inside you and become incapable of any rational discussion. The site just gets swamped by your apocalyptic hysteria. Every night. I’ll be back in the morning, when you are either absent, or sober.
    Jesus Christ I am entirely rational. I am lying in a hotel in Hereford simply crunching the numbers. They are inescapable

    Yes, they could all be wrong, but this is a numbers-based website.

    Compare it to an election. What we’re getting now is a sense of the postal votes and the first ballot boxes being opened. There is still a long way to go. But there is cause for Bufton Tufton MP for Complacenyshire to think Shit, I could lose this

    UNlike an election we can still change the result! Every indicator says: maximise your jab rate. Which is what the UKG is doing, I just think they need to go further, faster
    There used to be a poster on here, @eadric i think, who would make up numbers and call them “assumptions”.

    I think he believed there would be 2m dead in the UK but the end of 2020

    I wonder what happened to him?
    I'll have you know that over 200 million have died in the United Kingdom over the last... ooohhh... 5,000 years. So, if anything, @Leon underegged it.
    You in CA for Christmas? Fancy a drink?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    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.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,089
    Andy_JS said:

    "The omicron hysteria shows we are being led by experts who have no idea what living a normal life is

    Scores more Covid variants will come along in our lifetimes and they should not be a cause for panic, until proven otherwise
    ALLISON PEARSON"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2021/11/30/omicron-hysteria-shows-led-experts-have-no-idea-living-normal/

    The experts, with notable (and loud) exceptions like some of these iSAGE extremists (exhibit A: Professor Social-distancing-forever Michie) aren't really like this - although I do concur that the rush to gag everybody at the first sign of trouble is an over-reaction.

    Ultimately it's down to health and scientific advisers to give their perspective on what they think would help from the point of view of disease control - but for politicians to balance this against wider economic and social questions. The buck for the over-reaction ultimately stops with the Prime Minister - although, setting aside your opinion of the current incumbent, one has to have a certain amount of sympathy for our leaders in all of this. They are bound to upset a large chunk of opinion regardless of what they do - and especially if they choose not to follow whichever expert opinion any given media outlet has decided it would like to back.

    The main headline on the website of one Opposition-friendly newspaper after the press conference yesterday afternoon was, effectively, "Boris Johnson ignores expert advice." The expert being, of course, Dr Harries, who was the particular expert whose opinion was obviously considered more valid than that of anybody else in the world that day, because the Government had rejected it (whereas both the Labour Party and said publication itself are mad keen on pushing as many miserable impositions on people's lives as possible.) You can guarantee that, if the Government had decided to bring in masks everywhere and working from home, its opponents would have banked the concession, found a far more extreme opinion to emphasise, and moved on to demanding a full lockdown by the end of the week.

    All of that having been said, I can see where the frustration of people who have opinions like this originates from, because we do indeed need to learn not to keep having a massive panic every time this wretched virus mutates, or else we shall be stuck permanently in this nightmare situation where we never know which freedoms we are to be permitted to retain and which will be taken away from one day to the next. "Living with the virus" does not mean nailing a bloody gag to everybody's face every single time a virologist somewhere has an attack of the collywobbles, from now until the heat death of the universe. At some point, and soon, this has to stop.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,089

    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.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    edited December 2021
    pigeon said:

    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!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December.
    On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.

    I doubt it would make much difference to be honest. People know he’s not on the most cautious end of the spectrum.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010

    Somebody on SAGE leaking again for their agenda....

    Omicron may require 'very stringent response'
    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59484322

    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."
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited December 2021

    pigeon said:

    Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December.
    On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.

    And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
    I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice.
    What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?

    Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
    What this pandemic has shown is that far too many scientists do have an axe to grind. From the infamous Michie (who admittedly as a child psychologist working in academia might be better characterised as a pseudo-scientist) who mused about imposing communism, to Christina Pagel who seems avid for media publicity, through to the founder of iSage David King who just likes feeling important as he expands its remit, too many have undermined their own credibility by making ridiculous public statements to push an agenda that have subsequently been shown to be false, and giving advice that was utterly crazy (no border quarantine) for reasons that would defy rational explanation (if it weren't for the fact that wealthy people in low pressure jobs like foreign holidays).

    Scientific advisers, as opposed to scientific researchers, have had a bloody awful pandemic.
  • The panicking and the minimisers at either end of the debate may have the most passionate arguments, but for once the government response is about right and on time. A bit of caution on interactions, a bit of action on vaccines and wait and see until we know more is fine.
  • ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December.
    On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.

    And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
    I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice.
    What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?

    Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
    Scientific advisers, as opposed to scientific researchers, have had a bloody awful pandemic.
    It’s been a disaster for clear and effective communication about science to the general public, which is all the more tragic given the unprecedented scientific success of developing multiple vaccines so quickly.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724

    The panicking and the minimisers at either end of the debate may have the most passionate arguments, but for once the government response is about right and on time. A bit of caution on interactions, a bit of action on vaccines and wait and see until we know more is fine.

    Agree about the two ends of the spectrum, but caution is surely the wiser option.

    As I posted upthread scaling down our family's celebrations will result in disappointment for several, but which is the wiser course?
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 2,182

    Yes indeed a much warmer morning than recently.

    OT, Monbiot is bracingly and completely correct this morning that the extra amendments bolted on to the policing bill, and completely missed by the media, as well as parts of the original bill itself, are a threat to all of us and our basic democratic rights.

    Most concerning of all, among many concerns, is the open door to making any noisy, rather than violent, protest - and even helping to publicise such a protest online, by retweeting it, for instance - an arrestable offence.

    Very concerning stuff, and as so often in the last two decades, the British media, claiming to be fearless, is asleep at the wheel .

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/01/imprisoned-51-weeks-protesting-britain-police-state


    The UK media is alternately useless or dangerous. The quality of analysis can be seen by who have been the best paid OpEd writers: such Augustan figures as Gove and Johnson, and various other "luminaries" as Heffer or Hitchens. Meanwhile both print and broadcast media are sloppy with facts and critical details. The feral frenzy on the doings of the latest ingenue is matched by the indifference, ignorance or contempt demonstrated to most serious subjects.
  • The panicking and the minimisers at either end of the debate may have the most passionate arguments, but for once the government response is about right and on time. A bit of caution on interactions, a bit of action on vaccines and wait and see until we know more is fine.

    Agree about the two ends of the spectrum, but caution is surely the wiser option.

    As I posted upthread scaling down our family's celebrations will result in disappointment for several, but which is the wiser course?
    From a government point of view, it is fine to leave that decision to each family and individual to decide (in these circumstances, as we know more that may change).
  • Is it not irresponsible for the Labour Supporting Daily Mirror to run with this Boris story right now? So he had a works drinkies. Number ten say all guidelines were followed for such things, though it may have been a bit naughty. But more importantly, if further measures need to be introduced, which presumably being Labour the mirror will back, it needs people to follow them, which this story is undermining the likelihood of happening. Whatever argument they used to print to say it’s in national interest, It’s not in the National Interest for stories like that right now, in this difficult winter, undermining the governments virus fight no wonder other media organisations are not touching it. They should have held it back rather than undermine the country’s Covid measures shouldn’t they?

    Have a good night 🙋‍♀️

    Of course it isn't irresponsible. If this was an isolated incident a year ago then maybe. But it isn't. the PM doesn't care for other people's rules and continually flaunts the guidelines. This is about trying to force him to be a man and actually lead for a change before more people die.
  • ClippP said:

    On topic.... Have the Lib Dems released their polling figures yet? They did in Chesham and Amersham about this stage in the campaign.

    Yes.

    https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1465813823814836230

    In summary, if these figures are correct the Tories are fucked.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    What fresh hell awaits us today
  • Northstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December.
    On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.

    And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
    I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice.
    What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?

    Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
    Scientific advisers, as opposed to scientific researchers, have had a bloody awful pandemic.
    It’s been a disaster for clear and effective communication about science to the general public, which is all the more tragic given the unprecedented scientific success of developing multiple vaccines so quickly.
    For me the problem has been the status of the scientific advisers. Depending on the political mood they have been either used as human shields for ministers ("we know this is unpopular but we must follow the science") or discarded ("they advise, we decide").
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724

    ClippP said:

    On topic.... Have the Lib Dems released their polling figures yet? They did in Chesham and Amersham about this stage in the campaign.

    Yes.

    https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1465813823814836230

    In summary, if these figures are correct the Tories are fucked.
    While I don't agree with the language, we can but hope!
  • What fresh hell awaits us today

    The weather. I'm driving down to Manchester tomorrow morning and the overnight forecast is either rain (yay!) or heavy snow (oh hell no) depending on which forecaster you look at.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    pigeon said:

    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
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Cicero said:

    Yes indeed a much warmer morning than recently.

    OT, Monbiot is bracingly and completely correct this morning that the extra amendments bolted on to the policing bill, and completely missed by the media, as well as parts of the original bill itself, are a threat to all of us and our basic democratic rights.

    Most concerning of all, among many concerns, is the open door to making any noisy, rather than violent, protest - and even helping to publicise such a protest online, by retweeting it, for instance - an arrestable offence.

    Very concerning stuff, and as so often in the last two decades, the British media, claiming to be fearless, is asleep at the wheel .

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/01/imprisoned-51-weeks-protesting-britain-police-state


    The UK media is alternately useless or dangerous. The quality of analysis can be seen by who have been the best paid OpEd writers: such Augustan figures as Gove and Johnson, and various other "luminaries" as Heffer or Hitchens. Meanwhile both print and broadcast media are sloppy with facts and critical details. The feral frenzy on the doings of the latest ingenue is matched by the indifference, ignorance or contempt demonstrated to most serious subjects.
    The media give us what we want, which is excitement and outrage. If you expect cool, detailed, rational analysis then you've been tricked into believing in a theoretical model of society that has never existed.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631

    Pagan2 said:

    Out of curiousity as I saw him comment upthread.

    @Dura_Ace apparently she wont get the vaccine as tested on animals I am told

    Do we then assume none of your cars are painted as I know for a fact all the chemicals in car paint have ld50 figures which means they have been tested on animals

    People FPT are saying they'd go veggie for a while if he got jabbed.

    Now, that's rewarding bad behaviour. Since the stick often works better than the carrot, I'll go the opposite way: Dura, if you don't get yourself jabbed, I'll have a delicious, mouth-watering bacon sandwich, or glistening rare steak, or a sublime chicken korma, every day until you do. I'll eat *more* meat than I normally do.

    There: think of the animals you'll save. ;)
    I was highlighting the hypocrisy....wont get a jab because tested on animals, yet uses things all the time in everyday life tested on animals without any qualms
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346
    edited December 2021
    This chap is a regular poster on Betfair Forum, he posted his bet yesterday on the forum after the 150/1 winner, so before the 66/1 winner.

    https://www.racingpost.com/news/william-hill-punter-scoops-massive-281000-payout-from-7-bet/524765
  • Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    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).
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    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.
  • Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December.
    On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.

    And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
    I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice.
    What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?

    Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
    Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.

    In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
    But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
    The agenda is that when they say something that is out of line they must be acting against the government. So when Jenny Harries says something they agree with, they are Following the Science by enacting the scientist's recommendations. When Jenny Harries says something their backbenchers disagree with she is a witch who is only saying things to damage Boris Johnson.

    As usual I just want some consistency. Had they said from the start that the advisers advise and they decide that would have been fine. Instead it was "we're following the science" until they weren't. And now that the science is saying do things they don't want to do, the science instead of being followed must have a nefarious "axe to grind"
  • Yes indeed a much warmer morning than recently.

    OT, Monbiot is bracingly and completely correct this morning that the extra amendments bolted on to the policing bill, and completely missed by the media, as well as parts of the original bill itself, are a threat to all of us and our basic democratic rights.

    Most concerning of all, among many concerns, is the open door to making any noisy, rather than violent, protest - and even helping to publicise such a protest online, by retweeting it, for instance - an arrestable offence.

    Very concerning stuff, and as so often in the last two decades, the British media, claiming to be fearless, is asleep at the wheel .

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/01/imprisoned-51-weeks-protesting-britain-police-state


    Across what has been commonly regarded as the free world, the right is actively working to dismantle democracy. You see it where the GOP is in power in the US, with our government, and with the governments in countries like Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and India. It's all happening in very plain sight.
  • What fresh hell awaits us today

    My favourite coffee mug I've had for many years now is a Big Bang Theory coffee mug that says "Oh what fresh hell is this" . . . its been rather apt the last couple of years.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    Pulpstar said:

    Judge blocks Biden's COVID-19 vaccine rule for healthcare workers across the U.S. - Reuters

    The amount of political power US judges have is absolubtely crackers.
    TBF the other thing that happens a lot is that administrations overreach the powers that Congress intended to give them, when that happens the courts are the only way to make them follow the law.

    This doesn't happen so much in the UK because if you have the ability to form a government, you generally also have a majority to pass legislation, so you can change the law instead of trying to stretch it. But when we had a weird case where the PM was trying to do things that Parliament wouldn't vote for, as we did over Brexit, we also saw the PM overreaching (by proroguing parliament) and the courts slapping him down.
    Thanks, Edmund. I was going to make a similar comment. Other aspect are, IMO:
    1. having a Constitution as a single, revered, document means that it is easier in some ways for judges to provide a reasoned justification for overturning executive decisions and congressional laws.
    2. it is literally in US (i.e. federal) judges' job description (via the Judicial Branch Powers) to provide a check and balance to the powers of Congress and the Executive, that is to strike down Presidential decisions and Congressional laws either in whole or in part if deemed unconstitutional. I am not sure that is the case for most judges in the UK (the British Supreme Court was created after I left the UK)
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    glw said:

    Leon said:

    When it hits the poor and unvaxxed - and across Africa - with its insane transmissibility….

    This is now going beyond a global health emergency to a potential terminal nightmare. Vaccines seem to work, still, thank God but they will only work if everyone gets one

    20-30 years ago large scale PCR testing and gene sequencing would have been scarce and certainly unaffordable to use widely. We'd be flying blind through this pandemic. And you can forget having effective vaccines in just a year. Even 10 years ago most of these things would have proven much harder to do. In a way we are very lucky this is happening now.

    Even with our technological and scientific advances we are very fortunate that we didn't begin the pandemic with a Delta or Omicron.

    As it is I think the death toll from this pandemic now has a fair chance of exceeding the Spanish flu.
    Yes, absolutely

    It’s basic maths innit? Africa has largely avoided a huge wave, no one is sure why. Youth?

    This seems to be their wave, finally. It will sweep across Africa and it could kill tens of millions, putting it up there with Spanish Flu. I still hope to God I am wrong
    This is literally every night now. You get some booze inside you and become incapable of any rational discussion. The site just gets swamped by your apocalyptic hysteria. Every night. I’ll be back in the morning, when you are either absent, or sober.
    Jesus Christ I am entirely rational. I am lying in a hotel in Hereford simply crunching the numbers. They are inescapable

    Yes, they could all be wrong, but this is a numbers-based website.

    Compare it to an election. What we’re getting now is a sense of the postal votes and the first ballot boxes being opened. There is still a long way to go. But there is cause for Bufton Tufton MP for Complacenyshire to think Shit, I could lose this

    UNlike an election we can still change the result! Every indicator says: maximise your jab rate. Which is what the UKG is doing, I just think they need to go further, faster
    There used to be a poster on here, @eadric i think, who would make up numbers and call them “assumptions”.

    I think he believed there would be 2m dead in the UK but the end of 2020

    I wonder what happened to him?
    I'll have you know that over 200 million have died in the United Kingdom over the last... ooohhh... 5,000 years. So, if anything, @Leon underegged it.
    Rather like my daughter telling my brother-in-law that, should he have just one more cigar, he'd have a 100% lifetime chance of getting cancer. (He has already had cancer).
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    6-month end of probationary period review today. Should be fine as smashed all my targets. 🤞

    Well done.

    I have a mid probationary review with someone on Friday. Need to convey the message they need a course correction. Ugh.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    TimT said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Judge blocks Biden's COVID-19 vaccine rule for healthcare workers across the U.S. - Reuters

    The amount of political power US judges have is absolubtely crackers.
    TBF the other thing that happens a lot is that administrations overreach the powers that Congress intended to give them, when that happens the courts are the only way to make them follow the law.

    This doesn't happen so much in the UK because if you have the ability to form a government, you generally also have a majority to pass legislation, so you can change the law instead of trying to stretch it. But when we had a weird case where the PM was trying to do things that Parliament wouldn't vote for, as we did over Brexit, we also saw the PM overreaching (by proroguing parliament) and the courts slapping him down.
    Thanks, Edmund. I was going to make a similar comment. Other aspect are, IMO:
    1. having a Constitution as a single, revered, document means that it is easier in some ways for judges to provide a reasoned justification for overturning executive decisions and congressional laws.
    2. it is literally in US (i.e. federal) judges' job description (via the Judicial Branch Powers) to provide a check and balance to the powers of Congress and the Executive, that is to strike down Presidential decisions and Congressional laws either in whole or in part if deemed unconstitutional. I am not sure that is the case for most judges in the UK (the British Supreme Court was created after I left the UK)
    It is emphatically the province and duty...

    The biggest judicial powergrab in history.
  • TimT said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Judge blocks Biden's COVID-19 vaccine rule for healthcare workers across the U.S. - Reuters

    The amount of political power US judges have is absolubtely crackers.
    TBF the other thing that happens a lot is that administrations overreach the powers that Congress intended to give them, when that happens the courts are the only way to make them follow the law.

    This doesn't happen so much in the UK because if you have the ability to form a government, you generally also have a majority to pass legislation, so you can change the law instead of trying to stretch it. But when we had a weird case where the PM was trying to do things that Parliament wouldn't vote for, as we did over Brexit, we also saw the PM overreaching (by proroguing parliament) and the courts slapping him down.
    Thanks, Edmund. I was going to make a similar comment. Other aspect are, IMO:
    1. having a Constitution as a single, revered, document means that it is easier in some ways for judges to provide a reasoned justification for overturning executive decisions and congressional laws.
    2. it is literally in US (i.e. federal) judges' job description (via the Judicial Branch Powers) to provide a check and balance to the powers of Congress and the Executive, that is to strike down Presidential decisions and Congressional laws either in whole or in part if deemed unconstitutional. I am not sure that is the case for most judges in the UK (the British Supreme Court was created after I left the UK)
    My understanding is that your second point is still the case. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is not a constitutional court in quite the same way as SCOTUS. If parliament passes a law, then it is Law and the UK Supreme Court gets no say. My understanding is, that if Parliament wants to legislate around prorogation contrary to the decision in Miller they are free to do so (though it's currently a prerogative power, so they'd need to take it away from the Queen/Government and put it in the hands of parliament, I think). To get around SCOTUS, it would require a constitutional amendment, which is a very high bar. Perhaps too high.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,546
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Out of curiousity as I saw him comment upthread.

    @Dura_Ace apparently she wont get the vaccine as tested on animals I am told

    Do we then assume none of your cars are painted as I know for a fact all the chemicals in car paint have ld50 figures which means they have been tested on animals

    People FPT are saying they'd go veggie for a while if he got jabbed.

    Now, that's rewarding bad behaviour. Since the stick often works better than the carrot, I'll go the opposite way: Dura, if you don't get yourself jabbed, I'll have a delicious, mouth-watering bacon sandwich, or glistening rare steak, or a sublime chicken korma, every day until you do. I'll eat *more* meat than I normally do.

    There: think of the animals you'll save. ;)
    I was highlighting the hypocrisy....wont get a jab because tested on animals, yet uses things all the time in everyday life tested on animals without any qualms
    Yeah, it's just an excuse. He wants to be different, appear edgy, in control. Take his stories about his dangerous driving: they're often elegant stories, entertainingly told. But they don't hide the fact he's a first-grade dangerous tw@t who should be banned from ever driving anything bigger than a toddler's trike. And even then with a permanently-blaring horn to warn everyone else of his presence.

    That's if his stories are true. If they're not, then he's even worse...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    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
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited December 2021
    Donald Trump tested positive for Covid-19 three days before his first debate against Joe Biden, the former president’s fourth and last chief of staff has revealed in a new book.

    Mark Meadows also writes that though he knew each candidate was required “to test negative for the virus within seventy two hours of the start time … Nothing was going to stop [Trump] from going out there”.

    Trump, Meadows says in the book, returned a negative result from a different test shortly after the positive.


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/01/trump-tested-positive-covid-before-biden-debate-chief-staff-mark-meadows-book
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    edited December 2021
    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December.
    On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.

    And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
    I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice.
    What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?

    Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
    Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.

    In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
    But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).

    Your error is to believe there is a 'scientist' agenda. There is not. There are personal agendas, which the person attempts to boost through, most unscientifically, labelling themselves a 'scientist' and wrapping their rationale in selective use of facts and science.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257

    Seattle Times ($) - Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has sold 838,584 shares, more than half his shares in the company, “for personal financial planning and diversification reasons,” according to a statement Tuesday from a Microsoft spokesperson.

    The bigger news is that he's put it all on RefUK winning OB&S :wink:
  • Missed that overnight:

    EXPRESS: ⁦@RishiSunak⁩ : my actions prove I’m a low tax Tory #TomorrowsPapersToday

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1465812566198861829?s=20
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    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.
  • Missed that overnight:

    EXPRESS: ⁦@RishiSunak⁩ : my actions prove I’m a low tax Tory #TomorrowsPapersToday

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1465812566198861829?s=20

    In the same way as the Democratic Republic of Korea is a democracy.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Just heard Lisa Nandy for the second time in two days. I don't know how I managed to miss her. I'd just put her in a basket with Angela Rayner and she's anything but.

    It feels like Labour are getting themselves together in a big way. Things must have been happening behind the scenes. I don't know what but you can sense it. Could 2024 be 1997 revisited? It's got a few of the ingredients not least a rancid Tory government and a rejuvenated opposition.
  • Charles said:

    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    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?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    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"?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    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. Look at Sumption.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    edited December 2021
    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.

    It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
    Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
    Well, just look at public trust in lawyers for your answer.

    EDIT: More seriously, it is again not wrong for lawyers to have political views, or even to use the law to derive their political opinions. It would be the mis-application of the law combined with reliance of the trust people have in them to understand the law on legal issues that the public cannot be expected to know that would be objectionable.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    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. Look at Sumption.
    Yes, he's pugnacious in his views, but do you think your ordinary man or woman in the street goes around rejecting the advice and opinions of barristers because they listened to the Reith lectures and detected political bias in Sumption's recommendations?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.

    It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
    Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
    Well, just look at public trust in lawyers for your answer.
    Do you think that's as a result of lawyers expressing political views?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited December 2021
    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    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.
    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December.
    On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.

    And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
    I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice.
    What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?

    Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
    Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.

    In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
    But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
    Individual scientists have their own agendas. Susan Mickie for instance thinks government control of society is a good thing. Then that other guy who thinks that it is immoral to boost in the UK before the developing world is vaccinated.

    It’s fine for them to have political views, but they are not part of their remit and if it is colouring their advice then it is them pushing an agenda
    On an individual level, sure, but that's a different kettle of fish from the collective 'the science'. If individual scientists are pushing and agenda/answering questions put to them from with the benefit of their expertise to other individuals through the media, then what does it matter if they influence the behaviour of individuals who find their arguments persuasive? That's not Government policy, and their opinions don't have force of law.

    As you pointed out, the Government gets a range of advice from scientists. As individuals they will have opinions, and they will interpret the same numbers differently. It's the job of ministers to make a decision. Where they go 'against the science', it's perfectly fine for scientists to point that out.

    I think this distinction between political Vs scientific views is not a strong distinction in the minds of scientists. A scientists might think that the science suggests we should vaccinate the vulnerable globally, before moving onto less vulnerable populations in richer countries. Is that political, or is it scientific?
    That depends on the rationale put forward, its fairly easy to spot a moral argument over one which might be moral and also scientific. Particularly if you are on a body with a limited remit and speaking individually can confuse the issue of that body's advice or role.

    The issue with law and science is where it becomes an appeal to authority based on the person being a lawyer or scientist even if their personal view may not have the authority of consensus or evidence. It might, but its often assumed and becomes 'scientists say' not 'this scientist says X because y and that's why they are right'.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    TimT said:

    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December.
    On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.

    And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
    I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice.
    What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?

    Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
    Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.

    In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
    But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).

    Your error is to believe there is a 'scientist' agenda. There is not. There are personal agendas, which the person attempts to boost through, most unscientifically, labelling themselves a 'scientist' and wrapping their rationale in selective use of facts and science.
    I work with (and am one of) lots of epidemiologists and public health scientists. Most not involved in Covid particularly, but a couple on SAGE groups* and another who has advised JCVI^ (not a JVCI member, but advising on evidence on Covid impact and vaccine impact in young people).

    Many are quite cautious and see this, understandably, from a public health perspective and therefore more hawkish on restrictions, masks etc as these are the tools to reduce spread. Reducing spread of disease is, generally, the reason most of them got into science. It's more of a focus than the other societal issues, such as economy, importance to people of socialising etc.

    If I worked with economists, I suspect they'd be more comparatively more concerned about destroying our economy. Mental health specialists would have a different viewpoint.

    It's one of the reasons it's important the government has a balanced team of advisors considering all the issues.

    As TimT says, everyone has their personal biases too, political biases etc. Some would rubbish a policy from Johnson but be more accepting of the same from Sturgeon for example, because she gives the impression of having thought about it. All academics are also raging pinko commie lefties obviously :wink:

    *the one I know better was of the view keep things tight pre-vaccine but open up after, as long as hospitalisations remained manageable because "it ain't going to get any better than this"
    ^this person does think the evidence of vaccine benefit at the individual level for children is uncertain - vaccine probably outweighed risks, but you can't be too definitive, but should also consider benefits to kids of a not locked-down society. Given low risks, that persons personal view was to offer the vaccine, but not really push either way. Also very much against masks around young children, for development, pro-masks for adults in adult only/older child settings.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    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?
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    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. Look at Sumption.
    And the fox killer.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December.
    On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.

    And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
    I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice.
    What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?

    Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
    Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.

    In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
    But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
    Individual scientists have their own agendas. Susan Mickie for instance thinks government control of society is a good thing. Then that other guy who thinks that it is immoral to boost in the UK before the developing world is vaccinated.

    It’s fine for them to have political views, but they are not part of their remit and if it is colouring their advice then it is them pushing an agenda
    On an individual level, sure, but that's a different kettle of fish from the collective 'the science'. If individual scientists are pushing and agenda/answering questions put to them from with the benefit of their expertise to other individuals through the media, then what does it matter if they influence the behaviour of individuals who find their arguments persuasive? That's not Government policy, and their opinions don't have force of law.

    As you pointed out, the Government gets a range of advice from scientists. As individuals they will have opinions, and they will interpret the same numbers differently. It's the job of ministers to make a decision. Where they go 'against the science', it's perfectly fine for scientists to point that out.

    I think this distinction between political Vs scientific views is not a strong distinction in the minds of scientists. A scientists might think that the science suggests we should vaccinate the vulnerable globally, before moving onto less vulnerable populations in richer countries. Is that political, or is it scientific?
    It's the rational (and scientific) thing to do if you want to minimise overall harm. The most bang for a set amount of vaccine buck.

    If you want to minimise harm in your country, then you might take a different view. And minimising hamr in your own country is quite possibly the right thing to do - looking after those you are supposed to be working for as a politician.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Farooq said:

    Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.

    It’s not objectionable at all.

    But @OldKingCole’s original contention was that scientists have “no axe to grind”. I disagree with that, even though I have no issue with them having axes or, even, grinding them
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842

    Missed that overnight:

    EXPRESS: ⁦@RishiSunak⁩ : my actions prove I’m a low tax Tory #TomorrowsPapersToday

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1465812566198861829?s=20

    War is Peace.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.

    It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
    Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
    Well, just look at public trust in lawyers for your answer.
    Do you think that's as a result of lawyers expressing political views?
    I rather suspect it's lawyers' habit of creating vast mounds of work and then charging the earth for doing it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,589
    Another failure of the US criminal justice system.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59485586

    Apparently it took only two days for the private detective hired by the TV producer, four decades after the conviction, to produce evidence that the conviction was unsound.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/23/alice-sebold-1981-rape-conviction-overturned.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    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
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,842

    ClippP said:

    On topic.... Have the Lib Dems released their polling figures yet? They did in Chesham and Amersham about this stage in the campaign.

    Yes.

    https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1465813823814836230

    In summary, if these figures are correct the Tories are fucked.
    Strewth. If that is anyway true the seat is going yellow. Without even a total collapse of Labour to C+A levels.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    IanB2 said:

    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.

    It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
    Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
    Well, just look at public trust in lawyers for your answer.
    Do you think that's as a result of lawyers expressing political views?
    I rather suspect it's lawyers' habit of creating vast mounds of work and then charging the earth for doing it.
    I suspect it's the fact that people have a sense of justice being "obvious" and that blatantly guilty people get defended by clever procedural arguments and so acquitted. Dishonest sophistry leading to the guilty walking free.
    Of course, such a view is grounded in reality but is largely an edifice of public misunderstanding and ignorance of the process. The public are very poor judges of what experts do, and tend to remember the worst aspects they hear about, which are usually much more complex than they think anyway.

    Put simply, I don't think lawyers are to blame for their poor reputation, it just goes with the territory.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    Selebian said:

    TimT said:

    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December.
    On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.

    And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
    I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice.
    What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?

    Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
    Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.

    In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
    But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).

    Your error is to believe there is a 'scientist' agenda. There is not. There are personal agendas, which the person attempts to boost through, most unscientifically, labelling themselves a 'scientist' and wrapping their rationale in selective use of facts and science.
    I work with (and am one of) lots of epidemiologists and public health scientists. Most not involved in Covid particularly, but a couple on SAGE groups* and another who has advised JCVI^ (not a JVCI member, but advising on evidence on Covid impact and vaccine impact in young people).

    Many are quite cautious and see this, understandably, from a public health perspective and therefore more hawkish on restrictions, masks etc as these are the tools to reduce spread. Reducing spread of disease is, generally, the reason most of them got into science. It's more of a focus than the other societal issues, such as economy, importance to people of socialising etc.

    If I worked with economists, I suspect they'd be more comparatively more concerned about destroying our economy. Mental health specialists would have a different viewpoint.

    It's one of the reasons it's important the government has a balanced team of advisors considering all the issues.

    As TimT says, everyone has their personal biases too, political biases etc. Some would rubbish a policy from Johnson but be more accepting of the same from Sturgeon for example, because she gives the impression of having thought about it. All academics are also raging pinko commie lefties obviously :wink:

    *the one I know better was of the view keep things tight pre-vaccine but open up after, as long as hospitalisations remained manageable because "it ain't going to get any better than this"
    ^this person does think the evidence of vaccine benefit at the individual level for children is uncertain - vaccine probably outweighed risks, but you can't be too definitive, but should also consider benefits to kids of a not locked-down society. Given low risks, that persons personal view was to offer the vaccine, but not really push either way. Also very much against masks around young children, for development, pro-masks for adults in adult only/older child settings.
    I would be pretty much in agreement with the one you quote at the end of your post.

    I am very much for scientists, engineers, doctors, economists, anyone having political views and participating in the political process. I am also very much for them having honest disagreements on both politics and their professional discipline. This is not the issue.

    The issue is when someone breaches trust (by using the label scientist, lawyer, economist, whatever to create the sense of authoritative knowledge on some more arcane issue) by deliberately misusing the discipline in question (science, law, whatever) to bend the logic to arrive at their predetermined political bias.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    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.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    TimT said:

    Selebian said:

    TimT said:

    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December.
    On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.

    And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
    I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice.
    What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?

    Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
    Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.

    In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
    But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).

    Your error is to believe there is a 'scientist' agenda. There is not. There are personal agendas, which the person attempts to boost through, most unscientifically, labelling themselves a 'scientist' and wrapping their rationale in selective use of facts and science.
    I work with (and am one of) lots of epidemiologists and public health scientists. Most not involved in Covid particularly, but a couple on SAGE groups* and another who has advised JCVI^ (not a JVCI member, but advising on evidence on Covid impact and vaccine impact in young people).

    Many are quite cautious and see this, understandably, from a public health perspective and therefore more hawkish on restrictions, masks etc as these are the tools to reduce spread. Reducing spread of disease is, generally, the reason most of them got into science. It's more of a focus than the other societal issues, such as economy, importance to people of socialising etc.

    If I worked with economists, I suspect they'd be more comparatively more concerned about destroying our economy. Mental health specialists would have a different viewpoint.

    It's one of the reasons it's important the government has a balanced team of advisors considering all the issues.

    As TimT says, everyone has their personal biases too, political biases etc. Some would rubbish a policy from Johnson but be more accepting of the same from Sturgeon for example, because she gives the impression of having thought about it. All academics are also raging pinko commie lefties obviously :wink:

    *the one I know better was of the view keep things tight pre-vaccine but open up after, as long as hospitalisations remained manageable because "it ain't going to get any better than this"
    ^this person does think the evidence of vaccine benefit at the individual level for children is uncertain - vaccine probably outweighed risks, but you can't be too definitive, but should also consider benefits to kids of a not locked-down society. Given low risks, that persons personal view was to offer the vaccine, but not really push either way. Also very much against masks around young children, for development, pro-masks for adults in adult only/older child settings.
    I would be pretty much in agreement with the one you quote at the end of your post.

    I am very much for scientists, engineers, doctors, economists, anyone having political views and participating in the political process. I am also very much for them having honest disagreements on both politics and their professional discipline. This is not the issue.

    The issue is when someone breaches trust (by using the label scientist, lawyer, economist, whatever to create the sense of authoritative knowledge on some more arcane issue) by deliberately misusing the discipline in question (science, law, whatever) to bend the logic to arrive at their predetermined political bias.
    Yep. And we've definitely seen some instances of that during the pandemic.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,626
    Charles said:

    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    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.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited December 2021
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Max, the journalists, especially of the political variety, have a stunning lack of expertise or even basic understanding of almost everything. The vast majority are shallow sensationalists.

    Edited extra bit: or simply regurgitate the political consensus/party lines.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,601
    edited December 2021

    Boris was good today and for all his faults I am pleased he is PM at this time rather than Starmer

    The omicron variant in my view has been helpful to Boris and I expect both to be holds

    To bestow the genius tag on Johnson after yesterday's performance suggests we are all assuming that Dr Jenny Harries is wrong and Johnson is right regarding Christmas. That assumption may well help Johnson to comfortably win the two by elections.

    Johnson really has bet the house on Omicron being either mild or the slayer of Delta. To an untrained eye like mine at present it looks like a great call, although that might be part wishful thinking.

    As for the hapless, useless Starmer who you are relieved today, is nowhere near the levers of government, I believe his response is politically rather astute. He has focused on foreign travel and in particular testing overseas prior to the flight home. That seems like an easy win if Johnson has called it wrong, and a "no harm done" if he hasn't.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,626
    IanB2 said:

    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.

    It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
    Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
    Well, just look at public trust in lawyers for your answer.
    Do you think that's as a result of lawyers expressing political views?
    I rather suspect it's lawyers' habit of creating vast mounds of work and then charging the earth for doing it.
    Lawyers being involved and arguing for ever more complex laws that they then charge ever more money for interpreting. And then finding loopholes in for clients with deep pockets.

    Why should that erode trust?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,748
    edited December 2021

    Yes indeed a much warmer morning than recently.

    OT, Monbiot is bracingly and completely correct this morning that the extra amendments bolted on to the policing bill, and completely missed by the media, as well as parts of the original bill itself, are a threat to all of us and our basic democratic rights.

    Most concerning of all, among many concerns, is the open door to making any noisy, rather than violent, protest - and even helping to publicise such a protest online, by retweeting it, for instance - an arrestable offence.

    Very concerning stuff, and as so often in the last two decades, the British media, claiming to be fearless, is asleep at the wheel .

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/01/imprisoned-51-weeks-protesting-britain-police-state


    Across what has been commonly regarded as the free world, the right is actively working to dismantle democracy. You see it where the GOP is in power in the US, with our government, and with the governments in countries like Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and India. It's all happening in very plain sight.
    I think most people would take the view that obstructing roads and infrastructure as part of protests should be a criminal offence, rather than a civil matter involving various injunctions etc. It won't stop people doing it, but they will be arrested.

    Of more concern is the criminalisation of peripheral activity relating to such protests; and indeed the criminalisation of certain forms of political expression. People are getting long jail sentences for little other than associating with banned political groups. This ties in with the broad utopian impulse to make people safe by criminalising hate and abuse; driven by an apparent political consensus of left and right.


    Overall these developments are concerning, but they are part of a bigger picture and it is incorrect to characterise it all as being solely driven by the right.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,601
    edited December 2021
    Charles said:

    Leon said:

    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.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December.
    On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.

    And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
    I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice.
    What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?

    Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
    Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.

    In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
    But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).
    The agenda that they believe more restrictions are needed, and that the government is not going to implement them, so for the greater good they try something else to put pressure on the government. Nothing particularly wrong with that, although there probably is or should be rules of engagement around being on SAGE.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    On topic: I had a dabble in both by elections on Lab and LD respectively, mainly with a view to them being trading bets.

    NS worked out well enough (25% profit whatever the outcome; I caught a peak for selling although that has now been exceeded in last few days).

    On OB&S I only caught a little movement to Lab, so I'm break-even on a Con hold (or anyone else except Lab) and 40% up if Lab win. I don't expect to make anything on that, but didn't think the peanuts from a return either way were worth it. I've also got RefUK to beat 5%, which I'm fairly confident on and haven't traded at all.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Charles said:

    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    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.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    IanB2 said:

    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    Not sure that a scientist having a political opinion is any more objectionable than a lawyer having one. Or a footballer. Or a politician, even.

    It is not. Seeking to give their (mostly political) opinions more weight by using their 'scientist' brand is what is objectionable, largely because the process by which they seek to do that is nearly always unscientific, and hence is harmful to the science brand. Something which should concern us all.
    Do political lawyers damage the law "brand"?
    Well, just look at public trust in lawyers for your answer.
    Do you think that's as a result of lawyers expressing political views?
    I rather suspect it's lawyers' habit of creating vast mounds of work and then charging the earth for doing it.
    Lawyers being involved and arguing for ever more complex laws that they then charge ever more money for interpreting. And then finding loopholes in for clients with deep pockets.

    Why should that erode trust?
    Yes, it's one of those professions where regular members of the public who come into contact with it rarely come away with a favourable impression. Most commonly it'll be the bill for filling in a few simple forms when you move house, or the bill for dealing with a dead relative's affairs.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,626

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Out of curiousity as I saw him comment upthread.

    @Dura_Ace apparently she wont get the vaccine as tested on animals I am told

    Do we then assume none of your cars are painted as I know for a fact all the chemicals in car paint have ld50 figures which means they have been tested on animals

    People FPT are saying they'd go veggie for a while if he got jabbed.

    Now, that's rewarding bad behaviour. Since the stick often works better than the carrot, I'll go the opposite way: Dura, if you don't get yourself jabbed, I'll have a delicious, mouth-watering bacon sandwich, or glistening rare steak, or a sublime chicken korma, every day until you do. I'll eat *more* meat than I normally do.

    There: think of the animals you'll save. ;)
    I was highlighting the hypocrisy....wont get a jab because tested on animals, yet uses things all the time in everyday life tested on animals without any qualms
    Yeah, it's just an excuse. He wants to be different, appear edgy, in control. Take his stories about his dangerous driving: they're often elegant stories, entertainingly told. But they don't hide the fact he's a first-grade dangerous tw@t who should be banned from ever driving anything bigger than a toddler's trike. And even then with a permanently-blaring horn to warn everyone else of his presence.

    That's if his stories are true. If they're not, then he's even worse...
    Surely, if they are not true he is just a gifted raconteur rather than a Menace To The Public?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    MaxPB said:

    Selebian said:

    TimT said:

    Selebian said:

    TimT said:

    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    Morning all. By no means as chilly as recently, and relatively warm, I think, for 'early' December.
    On topic, have we any ideas of the percentage of postal votes already returned, especially in OB&S? I suspect the latest 'disagreement' between our PM and the scientists won't do his chances much good with many people, but of course, once one's vote has been posted, that it's it.

    And it may please just as many who incline away from a future of never-ending Covid crap, of course.
    I must admit that I have some sympathy with your views, especially since it now looks very much as though our Christmas plans have been thrown into disarray. However, it's difficult to argue with the scientists, who after all, have no axe to grind in this. Politicians such as our current PM crave good news stories, but if at the end of the day people seem likely to be put at risk, then it has to be Hobsons choice.
    What would you prefer; a nativity play or Grannie ill will a life-threatening disease?

    Grannie, of course, is almost certain to have been vaccinated, so maybe it's Uncle John who'll have the LTD!
    Why do you think scientists have no axe to grind? Everyone has an agenda.

    In any event you are hearing the perspective of 1 or 2 scientists in the media, not the full advice from JCVI
    But what agenda do you think the scientists have? I admit, I'm struggling to think of a coherent 'scientist agenda', whereas OKC pointed out that the Government Agenda would be for good news stories (as is any Government's agenda).

    Your error is to believe there is a 'scientist' agenda. There is not. There are personal agendas, which the person attempts to boost through, most unscientifically, labelling themselves a 'scientist' and wrapping their rationale in selective use of facts and science.
    I work with (and am one of) lots of epidemiologists and public health scientists. Most not involved in Covid particularly, but a couple on SAGE groups* and another who has advised JCVI^ (not a JVCI member, but advising on evidence on Covid impact and vaccine impact in young people).

    Many are quite cautious and see this, understandably, from a public health perspective and therefore more hawkish on restrictions, masks etc as these are the tools to reduce spread. Reducing spread of disease is, generally, the reason most of them got into science. It's more of a focus than the other societal issues, such as economy, importance to people of socialising etc.

    If I worked with economists, I suspect they'd be more comparatively more concerned about destroying our economy. Mental health specialists would have a different viewpoint.

    It's one of the reasons it's important the government has a balanced team of advisors considering all the issues.

    As TimT says, everyone has their personal biases too, political biases etc. Some would rubbish a policy from Johnson but be more accepting of the same from Sturgeon for example, because she gives the impression of having thought about it. All academics are also raging pinko commie lefties obviously :wink:

    *the one I know better was of the view keep things tight pre-vaccine but open up after, as long as hospitalisations remained manageable because "it ain't going to get any better than this"
    ^this person does think the evidence of vaccine benefit at the individual level for children is uncertain - vaccine probably outweighed risks, but you can't be too definitive, but should also consider benefits to kids of a not locked-down society. Given low risks, that persons personal view was to offer the vaccine, but not really push either way. Also very much against masks around young children, for development, pro-masks for adults in adult only/older child settings.
    I would be pretty much in agreement with the one you quote at the end of your post.

    I am very much for scientists, engineers, doctors, economists, anyone having political views and participating in the political process. I am also very much for them having honest disagreements on both politics and their professional discipline. This is not the issue.

    The issue is when someone breaches trust (by using the label scientist, lawyer, economist, whatever to create the sense of authoritative knowledge on some more arcane issue) by deliberately misusing the discipline in question (science, law, whatever) to bend the logic to arrive at their predetermined political bias.
    Yep. And we've definitely seen some instances of that during the pandemic.
    The whole iSAGE group exists to undermine the government. They are nothing more than a political pressure group using the word "science" to push a lockdown forever agenda. The issue is with our media in not challenging these wankers every time they pipe up.
    Yep, mainly what I had in mind. Plus a few other individuals.
  • Jonathan said:

    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.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405
    Good morning. Welcome to winter everyone!

    (Or welcome to summer if you are south of the equator.)
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    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.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Max, the journalists, especially of the political variety, have a stunning lack of expertise or even basic understanding of almost everything. The vast majority are shallow sensationalists.

    Edited extra bit: or simply regurgitate the political consensus/party lines.

    Thank God, THANK GOD I say, that there is nobody like that here.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Good morning. Welcome to winter everyone!

    (Or welcome to summer if you are south of the equator.)

    Welcome to Winter Act 2 of 5, with quite possibly a satyr play tacked on the end
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Good morning. Welcome to winter everyone!

    (Or welcome to summer if you are south of the equator.)

    Oh god.

    Pineapple on Radiohead.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,626
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    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.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    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.
  • 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.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    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.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257

    Charles said:

    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    Unpopular said:

    Charles said:

    pigeon said:

    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.
This discussion has been closed.