| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:00 - Apr 25 with 851 views | monytowbray |
| 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]
|
“Following the science we influenced with political interest” doesn’t have the same confident ring to it though. |  |
|  |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:03 - Apr 25 with 842 views | Lord_Lucan |
Well that in itself is ridiculous.
I admit to not reading the thread as I can't be arsed so what's the argument then? |  |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:06 - Apr 25 with 828 views | monytowbray |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:03 - Apr 25 by Lord_Lucan |
Well that in itself is ridiculous.
I admit to not reading the thread as I can't be arsed so what's the argument then? |
Release the notes and transcripts if they have nothing to hide.
Money says they don’t. | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:08 - Apr 25 with 822 views | Beckets |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:00 - Apr 25 by monytowbray |
“Following the science we influenced with political interest” doesn’t have the same confident ring to it though. |
We’re talking about Dominic ‘protect the economy and if that means some pensioners die, too bad’ Cummings here. |  | | |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:09 - Apr 25 with 821 views | Lord_Lucan |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:06 - Apr 25 by monytowbray |
Release the notes and transcripts if they have nothing to hide.
Money says they don’t. |
Why would they release the notes of individuals thought patterns to make them even more a target for our enemies.
Absolutely mind blowing stuff. | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:12 - Apr 25 with 811 views | monytowbray |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:09 - Apr 25 by Lord_Lucan |
Why would they release the notes of individuals thought patterns to make them even more a target for our enemies.
Absolutely mind blowing stuff. |
Because we’re in a global pandemic and this stuff is important.
It’s not a strategic war cabinet meeting. I don’t think the virus gives too much of a sh1t about strategy, let alone would it have the ability to capitalise on said knowledge.
As a nation though, trust in governance is something that could be a major threat to democracy.
It’s probably a good time to read 1984 if you want some nice parallels. | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:23 - Apr 25 with 783 views | Lord_Lucan |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:12 - Apr 25 by monytowbray |
Because we’re in a global pandemic and this stuff is important.
It’s not a strategic war cabinet meeting. I don’t think the virus gives too much of a sh1t about strategy, let alone would it have the ability to capitalise on said knowledge.
As a nation though, trust in governance is something that could be a major threat to democracy.
It’s probably a good time to read 1984 if you want some nice parallels. |
Considering future wars are likely to be cyber or virus wars I disagree with you.
I have read 1984 thank you very much. | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:32 - Apr 25 with 763 views | Churchman |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 12:25 - Apr 25 by itfcjoe |
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. |
The meeting will have been minuted. I can think of very few meetings that weren’t and those minutes would normally be agreed by the Chair then the main Committee, not casual attendees or observers and that’d include Cummins. I’ve no doubt Cummins gave his take on the meeting to Boris or whoever, but it’d be a pretty stupid thing for him to take just Cummins word on things....oh 😃. If there was anything out of kilter, ones normal response would be to cross check with other attendees, the Chair and the minutes - which i very much doubt would be for Cummins to approve. That’s my speculation tbh based on working in that kind world a year ago. Who knows, things in ‘process’ terms may have changed since then, but I doubt it.
I would add that observing can be very useful. It certainly was for me working on something mega complicated and I am sure working on C-19 is just as complex, certainly with much more minuscule deadlines, given it’s a disaster happening, not something that may happen.
Please don’t get me wrong, I think the Government have made a pigs ear of this and Governments do try and tinker with ‘the message’ sometimes, but I think this story is a storm in a teacup. There’s plenty of other more justifiable things to beat them up about. Just my view. [Post edited 25 Apr 2020 16:54]
|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:52 - Apr 25 with 730 views | itfcjoe |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:03 - Apr 25 by Lord_Lucan |
Well that in itself is ridiculous.
I admit to not reading the thread as I can't be arsed so what's the argument then? |
That this is supposed to be an independent group of scientists, because we are ‘following the science’ but there are 2 members of the number 10 team in the meetings contributing so it isn’t independent from politics |  |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 14:05 - Apr 25 with 712 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 07:30 - Apr 25 by GlasgowBlue |
It would appear, like the fake NHS multiple twitter accounts nonsense, that the accusation is false.
As I said last night, the evidence given at yesterday’s select committee was telling.
All four CMOs, Whitty plus the CMO’s of all three devolved governments, are members of SAGE and evidence to the select committee to say they all work together and followed same science. They stated that there are only regional differences occasionally in execution.
The devolved governments CMO’s would have reported back to their Sturgeon, Foster and the Welsh bloke whose borane escapes me at the moment.
Do you not think that the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon of the Labour leader of the Welsh Parliament would have gone public if Cummings was interfering in the scientific decisions? [Post edited 25 Apr 2020 7:42]
|
The telling sentence is this:
"From the start the Govt has tried hard to integrate scientific advice into its decision making in a sensible way"
1. Why would they have to try hard?
2. What other way is there apart from sensible?
I am currently watching the select committee metting you have mentioned, so far, I have just been hearing the usual civil service waffle - there is absolutely no way any of them would say anything controversial in that meeting - they are too experienced, and they know the media frenzy that would ensue if they did - though there is an interesting pause by Whitty at 15:03:35 when asked about whether the advice given by the committee was unanimous... |  |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 14:14 - Apr 25 with 693 views | Lord_Lucan |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:52 - Apr 25 by itfcjoe |
That this is supposed to be an independent group of scientists, because we are ‘following the science’ but there are 2 members of the number 10 team in the meetings contributing so it isn’t independent from politics |
Why shouldn't government have a presence in there? | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 14:30 - Apr 25 with 674 views | GlasgowBlue |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 14:14 - Apr 25 by Lord_Lucan |
Why shouldn't government have a presence in there? |
It's Saturday Lucan. I think Saturday is a day when we complain that the PM and/or his advisers attend meetings about Covid-19.
I believe it is Sunday when we complain that the PM and/or his advisers don't/didn't attend meetings about Covid-19. |  |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 14:44 - Apr 25 with 651 views | monytowbray |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 14:30 - Apr 25 by GlasgowBlue |
It's Saturday Lucan. I think Saturday is a day when we complain that the PM and/or his advisers attend meetings about Covid-19.
I believe it is Sunday when we complain that the PM and/or his advisers don't/didn't attend meetings about Covid-19. |
My favourite part of TWTD lately has been the fact you are so blue in the blood you will do virtually all you can to sit on the wrong side of history.
Again (what austerity?).
Eagerly awaiting your posts when he hit the 20k death mark this weekend. That should be totally rational and normal. | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 14:47 - Apr 25 with 640 views | monytowbray |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 13:23 - Apr 25 by Lord_Lucan |
Considering future wars are likely to be cyber or virus wars I disagree with you.
I have read 1984 thank you very much. |
We’re already in a cyber war of information. | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 14:58 - Apr 25 with 625 views | GlasgowBlue |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 14:44 - Apr 25 by monytowbray |
My favourite part of TWTD lately has been the fact you are so blue in the blood you will do virtually all you can to sit on the wrong side of history.
Again (what austerity?).
Eagerly awaiting your posts when he hit the 20k death mark this weekend. That should be totally rational and normal. |
I've politely asked you to stop peddling the no austerity lie. I've said on numerous occasions that had Labour won the 2010 GE they would have implemented similar austerity measures to those introduced by the Tories.
Not sure how Labour implementing austerity similar to that of Tahatcher in the 1980’s equates to me saying there has been no austerity.
I’ve a,so said on numerous occasions that austerity should have slowed down in 2013 as the finances became more balanced and the deficit had been reduced.
Yet you continue to wilfully misrepresent me.
I’m not the first person to get pissed off with you constantly lying and misrepresenting that’s they have said. Cut it out.
And once again, my view on the handling of this pandemic has nothing to do with party political allegiances, whether past or current.
I didn't vote Tory at the last election. I had no wish to see BJ in number 10.
When BJ was taken into ICU I suggested that three past PM's took over the ruining of the country. Two Labour, Brown and Blair with one Tory, John Major.
I've stated in this thread that I put my trust in the government of the day, regardless of political persuasion. I similarly believe that Blair acted on what he thought was best advice regarding Iraq.
I've also stated in this thread that I believe the minutes of the SAGE meetings should be made public and that if they show any political interference in the decision making process then the government should fall.
I know there is far too much non partisan thinking and nuance for your "all Tories are evil and trying to murder poor people" black and white world Callis but debate fairly and cut out the lies.
What worries me most about your last paragraph is I have no doubt you will gleefully sit in your bunker awaiting the news of people dying in order for the 20k figure to be exceeded, and you can attempt to make political capital over it on a football message board.
If I'm honest, you disgust me. [Post edited 25 Apr 2020 15:07]
| |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 15:06 - Apr 25 with 595 views | monytowbray |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 14:58 - Apr 25 by GlasgowBlue |
I've politely asked you to stop peddling the no austerity lie. I've said on numerous occasions that had Labour won the 2010 GE they would have implemented similar austerity measures to those introduced by the Tories.
Not sure how Labour implementing austerity similar to that of Tahatcher in the 1980’s equates to me saying there has been no austerity.
I’ve a,so said on numerous occasions that austerity should have slowed down in 2013 as the finances became more balanced and the deficit had been reduced.
Yet you continue to wilfully misrepresent me.
I’m not the first person to get pissed off with you constantly lying and misrepresenting that’s they have said. Cut it out.
And once again, my view on the handling of this pandemic has nothing to do with party political allegiances, whether past or current.
I didn't vote Tory at the last election. I had no wish to see BJ in number 10.
When BJ was taken into ICU I suggested that three past PM's took over the ruining of the country. Two Labour, Brown and Blair with one Tory, John Major.
I've stated in this thread that I put my trust in the government of the day, regardless of political persuasion. I similarly believe that Blair acted on what he thought was best advice regarding Iraq.
I've also stated in this thread that I believe the minutes of the SAGE meetings should be made public and that if they show any political interference in the decision making process then the government should fall.
I know there is far too much non partisan thinking and nuance for your "all Tories are evil and trying to murder poor people" black and white world Callis but debate fairly and cut out the lies.
What worries me most about your last paragraph is I have no doubt you will gleefully sit in your bunker awaiting the news of people dying in order for the 20k figure to be exceeded, and you can attempt to make political capital over it on a football message board.
If I'm honest, you disgust me. [Post edited 25 Apr 2020 15:07]
|
I 100% remember your responses to threads about austerity between 2010 and 2015. So do many others.
Long paragraphs and lies don’t change that.
Must be horrible to feel your views have been misrepresented though. Sort of like when you raise angry concerns about the government handling of a pandemic, are continually accused of political point scoring and then 6 weeks later here we are 🤷â€â™‚ï¸ | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 15:07 - Apr 25 with 591 views | itfcjoe |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 14:14 - Apr 25 by Lord_Lucan |
Why shouldn't government have a presence in there? |
This is what Sir David King, who was the former Chief Scientific Adviser, says about it:
Some people are questioning why it matters that an advisor attend SAGE? Indeed, in my time in govt non-scientific civil servants regularly attended similar meetings in a non-participatory or note taking role. However, these were never SPADs who are of course party political.
I remind people that I served under both Labour and Conservative governments so the concern I am showing is not party political. Let me be clear on this, the Chief Scientific Advisor's role is to distil information from experts on SAGE and inform government.
If a SPAD is sitting on SAGE it’s a fair assumption that *they* are at least in part playing this role, one which it’s simply inappropriate and wrong for them to be playing.
Basically that it is up to the Chief Scientific Adviser to get all the information from the meeting and present it to the Government.
If the Government has a presence there, I presume he believes that they will feed back details from the meeting that may not be how they see it. They may be looking out for certain things, have bias, cognotive dissonance etc and it means that the Govt are getting both Cummings version of the meeting, and the CSAs. If it is an independent body of scientists then a political adviser simply should not be involved and potentially muddying the waters. | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 15:11 - Apr 25 with 585 views | GlasgowBlue |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 15:06 - Apr 25 by monytowbray |
I 100% remember your responses to threads about austerity between 2010 and 2015. So do many others.
Long paragraphs and lies don’t change that.
Must be horrible to feel your views have been misrepresented though. Sort of like when you raise angry concerns about the government handling of a pandemic, are continually accused of political point scoring and then 6 weeks later here we are 🤷â€â™‚ï¸ |
There are absolutely dozens of posters on here that are harsh critics of the governments handling of the crisis who are not doing so in an attempt to score political points.
Fancy using the deaths of over 20k people to win arguments on the internet. Appalling.
And I note you completely swerve what I posted regarding non partisan views. Easier just to throw out immature sound bite than actually address the facts.
I said at the start that you should get off the internet until this is all over. I haven’t changed my view. You are on here 24/7 no matter what the weather. It’s not healthy for anybody.
Edit. And I really shouldn’t have taken the bait. I know this is how you get some self gratification. [Post edited 25 Apr 2020 15:14]
| |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 15:14 - Apr 25 with 570 views | vapour_trail |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 15:11 - Apr 25 by GlasgowBlue |
There are absolutely dozens of posters on here that are harsh critics of the governments handling of the crisis who are not doing so in an attempt to score political points.
Fancy using the deaths of over 20k people to win arguments on the internet. Appalling.
And I note you completely swerve what I posted regarding non partisan views. Easier just to throw out immature sound bite than actually address the facts.
I said at the start that you should get off the internet until this is all over. I haven’t changed my view. You are on here 24/7 no matter what the weather. It’s not healthy for anybody.
Edit. And I really shouldn’t have taken the bait. I know this is how you get some self gratification. [Post edited 25 Apr 2020 15:14]
|
You have used the word appalling in this thread.
I don’t think making casual unqualified diagnosis on the state of other people mental health on here is an acceptable way to behave. You should edit your post. |  |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 15:16 - Apr 25 with 559 views | GlasgowBlue |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 15:14 - Apr 25 by vapour_trail |
You have used the word appalling in this thread.
I don’t think making casual unqualified diagnosis on the state of other people mental health on here is an acceptable way to behave. You should edit your post. |
Where have I mentioned his mental health?
It wouldn’t be healthy, physically or mentally, for anyone to spend 24/7 on the internet during a period of lockdown. Even if one had no issues at all surrounding metal health. It’s a general point and not aimed at Callis’s mental health.
I fear you are looking for something that isn’t there.
Edit. And re reading my post I specifscly mention the weather and say it wouldn’t be healthy for anybody
[Post edited 25 Apr 2020 15:22]
| |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 15:16 - Apr 25 with 558 views | Churchman |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 14:05 - Apr 25 by Ewan_Oozami |
The telling sentence is this:
"From the start the Govt has tried hard to integrate scientific advice into its decision making in a sensible way"
1. Why would they have to try hard?
2. What other way is there apart from sensible?
I am currently watching the select committee metting you have mentioned, so far, I have just been hearing the usual civil service waffle - there is absolutely no way any of them would say anything controversial in that meeting - they are too experienced, and they know the media frenzy that would ensue if they did - though there is an interesting pause by Whitty at 15:03:35 when asked about whether the advice given by the committee was unanimous... |
I can tell you straight, I know of no Civil Servants/Director Generals telling lies at any Select Committees I had any connection with. It was not in their or anybody else’s interests to. I’ve seen people get it wrong or not have an answer and consequently seen one or two thrown under the bus, though that’s rare. These Committees when Civil Servants are in the firing line are not about ‘saying anything controversial’. They are about MPs of all persuasions challenging Civil Servants on what they are doing - and my experience is that the Chair of the Select Committees are very good at that (take a bow Ms Cooper, Mr Benn and Ms Morgan), even if their political colleagues that also asked questions sometimes weren’t. | | | |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 15:21 - Apr 25 with 550 views | GlasgowBlue |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 15:07 - Apr 25 by itfcjoe |
This is what Sir David King, who was the former Chief Scientific Adviser, says about it:
Some people are questioning why it matters that an advisor attend SAGE? Indeed, in my time in govt non-scientific civil servants regularly attended similar meetings in a non-participatory or note taking role. However, these were never SPADs who are of course party political.
I remind people that I served under both Labour and Conservative governments so the concern I am showing is not party political. Let me be clear on this, the Chief Scientific Advisor's role is to distil information from experts on SAGE and inform government.
If a SPAD is sitting on SAGE it’s a fair assumption that *they* are at least in part playing this role, one which it’s simply inappropriate and wrong for them to be playing.
Basically that it is up to the Chief Scientific Adviser to get all the information from the meeting and present it to the Government.
If the Government has a presence there, I presume he believes that they will feed back details from the meeting that may not be how they see it. They may be looking out for certain things, have bias, cognotive dissonance etc and it means that the Govt are getting both Cummings version of the meeting, and the CSAs. If it is an independent body of scientists then a political adviser simply should not be involved and potentially muddying the waters. |
And yet a few SPADS have come out to say that they attended SAGE meetings in 2009 during the swine flu pandemic. | |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 15:31 - Apr 25 with 522 views | monytowbray |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 15:16 - Apr 25 by GlasgowBlue |
Where have I mentioned his mental health?
It wouldn’t be healthy, physically or mentally, for anyone to spend 24/7 on the internet during a period of lockdown. Even if one had no issues at all surrounding metal health. It’s a general point and not aimed at Callis’s mental health.
I fear you are looking for something that isn’t there.
Edit. And re reading my post I specifscly mention the weather and say it wouldn’t be healthy for anybody
[Post edited 25 Apr 2020 15:22]
|
“I fear you are looking for something that isn’t there.”
This has to be my favourite self own in the history of TWTD.
Some of us saw the writing on the wall early. Some of us posted about that.
Others swallowed what they were told like sheep and insisted others were political point scoring. Or that they’d get a rock on when loads of people died.
Stay classy.
Your edits are mildly amusing though. I guess it’s easier to pretend this is one big TROLOLOLOL for sh1ts and giggles than actually concede you might have defended the death toll. [Post edited 25 Apr 2020 15:33]
| |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 16:01 - Apr 25 with 481 views | Lord_Lucan |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 14:44 - Apr 25 by monytowbray |
My favourite part of TWTD lately has been the fact you are so blue in the blood you will do virtually all you can to sit on the wrong side of history.
Again (what austerity?).
Eagerly awaiting your posts when he hit the 20k death mark this weekend. That should be totally rational and normal. |
If it wasn't for a few years of austerity I struggle to see how we would have had any money in the pot to bankroll this crisis in the way that we've done to be honest.
Just my opinion like.
I've edited my last bit, no need for it really. [Post edited 25 Apr 2020 16:06]
| |
| |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 16:06 - Apr 25 with 466 views | monytowbray |
| I think we've found out why the government wouldn't name members of SAGE on 16:01 - Apr 25 by Lord_Lucan |
If it wasn't for a few years of austerity I struggle to see how we would have had any money in the pot to bankroll this crisis in the way that we've done to be honest.
Just my opinion like.
I've edited my last bit, no need for it really. [Post edited 25 Apr 2020 16:06]
|
Don’t drink. And done this discussion about the death toll.
Really, this weekend, what needs to happen is those who have defended all going on for weeks need to consider what kind of job No. 10 are doing if they’ve failed by their own benchmarks. And that’s in relation to testing too.
That’s way more important than pretending anyone calling this out for weeks is now having a party. No one is going to be held accountable if a large chunk of the public support hiding the truth and a lack of transparency.
The mind boggles but then again it’s not the first time. Grenfell Enquiry and the Russia Report spring to mind. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
