| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 08:42 - Apr 25 with 2269 views | GlasgowBlue |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 08:23 - Apr 25 by itfcjoe |
Do you not think there is a danger that having a behavioural scientist in the meeting contributing that he may be able to exert influence without the others really being aware that it is being done to them? As that is literally what he is an expert in?
Nudge theory, etc.
If they are independent, there should be no political influence whatsoever in there. If they want to observe then fine - but that isn’t what is happening? |
FFS Joe. I just said I was out to dubs but I’ve just seen CIL or Pazelle have hacked your account.
Dom Cummings has telepathically mislead Chris Whitty and a Patrick Vallance? We are talking about Dominic Cummings here. Not Paul McKenna.
Look into my eyes, look into my eyes....... [Post edited 25 Apr 2020 8:43]
|  |
|  |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 08:45 - Apr 25 with 2260 views | lowhouseblue |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 08:36 - Apr 25 by itfcjoe |
Cummings isn’t the behavioural scientist out of the two there.
You know what behavioural science is though,you know that people can control and nudge meetings along to where they want them to, it happens in all industries at all levels if there is someone who is a good people person and is allowed to exert their influences. |
tee hee. i think you have a rather fictionalised view of behavioural scientists there.
let's at least give the scientists who get on sage the respect of assuming they are really pretty serious people, with huge committee experience and have seen it all before. you don't get to the top of science if you back down in discussions. they are used to dealing with people a lot clever than cummings. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 08:47 - Apr 25 with 2251 views | itfcjoe |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 08:42 - Apr 25 by GlasgowBlue |
FFS Joe. I just said I was out to dubs but I’ve just seen CIL or Pazelle have hacked your account.
Dom Cummings has telepathically mislead Chris Whitty and a Patrick Vallance? We are talking about Dominic Cummings here. Not Paul McKenna.
Look into my eyes, look into my eyes....... [Post edited 25 Apr 2020 8:43]
|
Disingenuous again, I’ll leave you and Lowhouse to it |  |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 09:05 - Apr 25 with 2231 views | Dubtractor |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 08:39 - Apr 25 by GlasgowBlue |
Do you not think these are less than normal times?
I doubt you, Joe or I will change our views by doing this over another two or three pages, then other will join in and I’ll just end up repeating what I said to you over and over again.
I’ll end with, if the minutes prove that Cummings had any influence over the consensus taken by the scientists then it is a national scandal which should bring down the government. But I don’t believe that a group of the most eminent scientists in the day try would age rolled over for Cummings.
And I dint believe that first ministers would have carried out the same response across the U.K., even though they are all running different countries and from different political parties, because of decisions influenced by Dominic Cummings. |
That's fair enough, and no, we won't change each other's mind so lets not bother trying! |  |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 09:50 - Apr 25 with 2184 views | giant_stow |
To me, this is about trust again. No one trusts them, so nobody will believe this could be innocent or acceptable. |  |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 09:52 - Apr 25 with 2170 views | gordon |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 09:50 - Apr 25 by giant_stow |
To me, this is about trust again. No one trusts them, so nobody will believe this could be innocent or acceptable. |
There isn't very much chance that it is.
Those scientists on SAGE who are leaking to the Guardian obviously aren't doing so because they think everything's fine. |  | | |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 09:54 - Apr 25 with 2167 views | giant_stow |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 09:52 - Apr 25 by gordon |
There isn't very much chance that it is.
Those scientists on SAGE who are leaking to the Guardian obviously aren't doing so because they think everything's fine. |
Hadnt thought about the leaker's motivation - good stuff. | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 10:01 - Apr 25 with 2157 views | Churchman |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 07:42 - Apr 25 by itfcjoe |
So they aren’t on Sage but they attend meetings and ask questions?
Like the Sunday Times rebuttal, this is just Trump style politics - just paint journalists as liars constantly, how long until they start saying Fake News in press conferences? |
i don’t think it’s about painting journalists as liars particularly, But they will make a story from bits of information, will take stuff out of context, will come to conclusions based on the wrong premise sometimes. As I’ve said before on here, a lot of what was written on Brexit work I was directly involved in or connected to was either a distortion or complete and utter rubbish. The journalists don’t help themselves and you see that with the largely idiotic questions in the briefings each day.
In terms of government meetings, the general rule was that there would be your usual attendees plus invitees, who maybe there to participate in a bit of it or to observe some/all of it. There is nothing unusual about that in public or private sector and I’m not surprised spooky Cummins attended one of these. The one constant of these kind of meetings was that they are largely boring, even if they are about high profile matters. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 10:04 - Apr 25 with 2148 views | gordon |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 09:54 - Apr 25 by giant_stow |
Hadnt thought about the leaker's motivation - good stuff. |
'Multiple attendees of SAGE told the Guardian that Cummings and Warner had been participating in meetings since February.'
That's pretty conclusive, unless either the Guardian journalist is lying or the scientists were lying.
If scientists are already briefing about this, then this doesn't look good at all - they won't want the public to lose faith in the government approach now, but they will have to fight hard to protect own reputations when we come to address how and why the crisis was mis-handled throughout February and March.
| | | |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 10:11 - Apr 25 with 2149 views | giant_stow |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 10:04 - Apr 25 by gordon |
'Multiple attendees of SAGE told the Guardian that Cummings and Warner had been participating in meetings since February.'
That's pretty conclusive, unless either the Guardian journalist is lying or the scientists were lying.
If scientists are already briefing about this, then this doesn't look good at all - they won't want the public to lose faith in the government approach now, but they will have to fight hard to protect own reputations when we come to address how and why the crisis was mis-handled throughout February and March.
|
Interesting that paul lewis specifically counters the point about devolved experts only being allowed to listen, as opposed to cimmings. Looks like more bs disappearing into the air. | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 10:22 - Apr 25 with 2132 views | eireblue |
What would Cummings have learned from these meetings that wouldn’t have been easily read in published SAGE advice?
Scientific advise that is published vs how a consensus is reached?
I would suggest that an unknown is what Cummings took from the proceedings of the meetings rather than just the published conclusions. |  | | |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 10:27 - Apr 25 with 2128 views | itfcjoe |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 10:04 - Apr 25 by gordon |
'Multiple attendees of SAGE told the Guardian that Cummings and Warner had been participating in meetings since February.'
That's pretty conclusive, unless either the Guardian journalist is lying or the scientists were lying.
If scientists are already briefing about this, then this doesn't look good at all - they won't want the public to lose faith in the government approach now, but they will have to fight hard to protect own reputations when we come to address how and why the crisis was mis-handled throughout February and March.
|
That's a big point from Lewis and calls so much into question.
I quoted Sir Dave King on here earlier (which GlasgowBlue deliberately and disingenuously misquoted in response) and those points are key.
So much blurring going on, but the reality is this committee is either independent from politics or it isn't. With 2 No 10 guys contributing to the meetings, it's clear whichside of it I believe it falls. | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 10:38 - Apr 25 with 2111 views | lowhouseblue |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 09:50 - Apr 25 by giant_stow |
To me, this is about trust again. No one trusts them, so nobody will believe this could be innocent or acceptable. |
actually the polls suggest that outside the twtd and the media trust in the government remains quite high. the relentless media negativity doesn't really seem to be affecting the public. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 10:56 - Apr 25 with 2095 views | DanTheMan |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 10:38 - Apr 25 by lowhouseblue |
actually the polls suggest that outside the twtd and the media trust in the government remains quite high. the relentless media negativity doesn't really seem to be affecting the public. |
According to YouGov, it dropped 6 points in a week. So it might well be. |  |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 11:05 - Apr 25 with 2076 views | m14_blue |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 10:38 - Apr 25 by lowhouseblue |
actually the polls suggest that outside the twtd and the media trust in the government remains quite high. the relentless media negativity doesn't really seem to be affecting the public. |
People generally support the government during a national emergency, it’s a form of patriotism I guess and is perfectly natural. I was desperate to give them the benefit of the doubt for a long time but it gets harder with every passing day.
If this has been as badly mishandled as now seems likely the reckoning will be brutal for those in power. |  | | |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 11:06 - Apr 25 with 2076 views | Churchman |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 10:27 - Apr 25 by itfcjoe |
That's a big point from Lewis and calls so much into question.
I quoted Sir Dave King on here earlier (which GlasgowBlue deliberately and disingenuously misquoted in response) and those points are key.
So much blurring going on, but the reality is this committee is either independent from politics or it isn't. With 2 No 10 guys contributing to the meetings, it's clear whichside of it I believe it falls. |
But why does sitting in on a specialists’ meeting necessarily constitute ‘blurring’? This happens all the time. Cummins isn’t a scientist. As I see it he can only observe, ask the odd question and meet people. I doubt he could dictate the outputs from that meeting.
I am contradicting what I said in the other post a bit, but one of the key benefits from meetings is meeting people, networking, watching them operate and body language etc can often tell you more than by the written word or teleconferences. Face to face for me was always the best way to communicate, where possible. Scientists advise, civil servants carry out, but the politicians make policy and decisions. They are ultimately accountable. Awful though Cummins may be (not somebody I know anything about first hand), I doubt there is anything in this story, personally. | | | |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 11:06 - Apr 25 with 2074 views | vapour_trail |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 10:56 - Apr 25 by DanTheMan |
According to YouGov, it dropped 6 points in a week. So it might well be. |
It’s started to adopt the narrative you get from the alt right nutjobs amongst us of this board being some sort of leftiebumfest.
Somebody jokingly suggested it might be some sort of government sponsored bot the other day... |  |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 12:07 - Apr 25 with 2023 views | giant_stow |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 11:05 - Apr 25 by m14_blue |
People generally support the government during a national emergency, it’s a form of patriotism I guess and is perfectly natural. I was desperate to give them the benefit of the doubt for a long time but it gets harder with every passing day.
If this has been as badly mishandled as now seems likely the reckoning will be brutal for those in power. |
Very true. Also i think that when you back a horse (brexity borris from the tory stable) you want it to win and do well, so when it doesn't, it takes a while to admit its losing. [Post edited 25 Apr 2020 12:10]
| |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 12:16 - Apr 25 with 2009 views | itfcjoe |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 12:07 - Apr 25 by giant_stow |
Very true. Also i think that when you back a horse (brexity borris from the tory stable) you want it to win and do well, so when it doesn't, it takes a while to admit its losing. [Post edited 25 Apr 2020 12:10]
|
Especially when it feels like a bit of a culture war - they will just keep attacking the press.
Even David Davis tweeting today saying their should be no non-scientists on it, and their should be total transparency like there is with MPC. | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 12:23 - Apr 25 with 1997 views | monytowbray |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 12:16 - Apr 25 by itfcjoe |
Especially when it feels like a bit of a culture war - they will just keep attacking the press.
Even David Davis tweeting today saying their should be no non-scientists on it, and their should be total transparency like there is with MPC. |
“Nothing to see here, look the compulsive liars said so” is possibly the weakest defence I’ve seen from posters who are also quick to rubbish the leaked Labour report.
What do they say when we hit 20k deaths this weekend? Will the benchmark change and how will that be spun by those oddly desperate to die on a hill defending this shambles.
I will say, I didn’t have you down as the molotov throwing kinda guy until recently, I think you’ve got it in you now :) |  |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 12:25 - Apr 25 with 1994 views | itfcjoe |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 11:06 - Apr 25 by Churchman |
But why does sitting in on a specialists’ meeting necessarily constitute ‘blurring’? This happens all the time. Cummins isn’t a scientist. As I see it he can only observe, ask the odd question and meet people. I doubt he could dictate the outputs from that meeting.
I am contradicting what I said in the other post a bit, but one of the key benefits from meetings is meeting people, networking, watching them operate and body language etc can often tell you more than by the written word or teleconferences. Face to face for me was always the best way to communicate, where possible. Scientists advise, civil servants carry out, but the politicians make policy and decisions. They are ultimately accountable. Awful though Cummins may be (not somebody I know anything about first hand), I doubt there is anything in this story, personally. |
I think the issue here, and what Sir Dave King touched on is this:
"What we don't know is the influence he plays in taking what he interprets from those meetings back to the prime minister."
He may well be taking things back, that aren't what is fully agreed upon. He may have got a read from a couple of people and got it wrong. The whole point, surely, of these meetings is for them to agree on a set of minutes that give an accurate reflection of the whole meeting?
People are subject to confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance and the likes - that's why he shouldn't even be observing in reality - let alone taking part, and taking a big part than the CMO of Scotland, Wales, etc. | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 12:49 - Apr 25 with 1976 views | Lord_Lucan |
It would be absolutely ridiculous to announce who is in SAGE as it would lead the individuals exposed to hostile foreign pressure from unscrupulous governments. |  |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 12:52 - Apr 25 with 1971 views | itfcjoe |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 12:49 - Apr 25 by Lord_Lucan |
It would be absolutely ridiculous to announce who is in SAGE as it would lead the individuals exposed to hostile foreign pressure from unscrupulous governments. |
21 of them are named on Wikipedia so it isn’t exactly a list of secret agents.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Advisory_Group_for_Emergencies | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 12:55 - Apr 25 with 1961 views | Swansea_Blue |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 19:35 - Apr 24 by GlasgowBlue |
So you disagree with Hodges that the PM's most senior advisor should participate in SAGE meetings?
You would then be the first to start moaning that Number 10 weren't taking the matter seriously and ignoring the meetings. |
Hodges is a strange person to look to for an opinion on this. I’d be more inclined to listen to people who have experience, e.g:
Whether he should or shouldn’t be there, at the very least this is another indication that the government’s claim to be “following the science” may not necessarily be what it seems.
Edit - apologies, I see Joe brought King into it earlier. [Post edited 25 Apr 2020 13:00]
|  |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:00 - Apr 25 with 1944 views | Radlett_blue |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 12:55 - Apr 25 by Swansea_Blue |
Hodges is a strange person to look to for an opinion on this. I’d be more inclined to listen to people who have experience, e.g:
Whether he should or shouldn’t be there, at the very least this is another indication that the government’s claim to be “following the science” may not necessarily be what it seems.
Edit - apologies, I see Joe brought King into it earlier. [Post edited 25 Apr 2020 13:00]
|
Any sane government will listen carefully to scientific advice, but decisions taken involve other factors, such as whether the country can afford the cost of a prolonged lockdown, which inevitably includes lives as well as controlling the spread of the virus. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
