| Piece on the decision making.... on 08:56 - Apr 8 with 993 views | StokieBlue |
Zombie is right and I was hasty, however one part still stands around the government receiving advice which was the part I was talking about - I should have been clearer, my bad.
SB [Post edited 8 Apr 2020 10:48]
|  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
|  |
| Piece on the decision making.... on 09:43 - Apr 8 with 954 views | WeWereZombies |
| Piece on the decision making.... on 08:56 - Apr 8 by StokieBlue |
Zombie is right and I was hasty, however one part still stands around the government receiving advice which was the part I was talking about - I should have been clearer, my bad.
SB [Post edited 8 Apr 2020 10:48]
|
Forgive me if I am wrong but I have a feeling, looking at the time Lagos posted the original and you posted your response, that you may not have read through and digested the whole of that article. |  |
| |
| Piece on the decision making.... on 09:55 - Apr 8 with 945 views | eireblue |
Interesting.
Seems to me it demonstrates the dangers of appeal to authority and group think.
Not like that hasn’t happened before.
Callis will probably find it an interesting read. |  | | |
| Piece on the decision making.... on 09:58 - Apr 8 with 947 views | WestStanderLaLaLa |
Shocking stuff. Failure all round. Do scientists really tailor advice to what what is perceived to be acceptable to the the public. |  |
| |
| Piece on the decision making.... on 10:06 - Apr 8 with 927 views | WeWereZombies |
| Piece on the decision making.... on 09:58 - Apr 8 by WestStanderLaLaLa |
Shocking stuff. Failure all round. Do scientists really tailor advice to what what is perceived to be acceptable to the the public. |
One name that does not get mentioned in that piece is Dominic Cummings but you can almost hear him in the background. It is a dialectic, if the main players on the scientific advisers side do not think they can get it past the politicians then they keep their powder dry. If the politicians do not think they can get it past the public they keep schtum. As soon as the politicians realise that events will make them look bad if they do not get it past the public then they elicit the advice they need from the scientists and the scientists feel confident to give it. | |
| |
| Piece on the decision making.... on 10:35 - Apr 8 with 906 views | StokieBlue |
| Piece on the decision making.... on 09:43 - Apr 8 by WeWereZombies |
Forgive me if I am wrong but I have a feeling, looking at the time Lagos posted the original and you posted your response, that you may not have read through and digested the whole of that article. |
Maybe. I think it's fairly clear that the government were acting on advice which is what they should do but that advice wasn't put across in a timely or effective manner:
"But the interviews and documents also reveal that for more than two months, the scientists whose advice guided Downing Street did not clearly signal their worsening fears to the public or the government. Until March 12, the risk level, set by the government's top medical advisers on the recommendation of the scientists, remained at "moderate," suggesting only the possibility of a wider outbreak."
The government can question them but in the end they have to accept the advice given and act on that otherwise what is the point in having the advice?
The other criticisms of the government are entirely fair in that article and they will have to be answers to questions on why meetings were missed etc. That is fully on them.
However I don't believe the timings around the execution of the plan can be fully laid on the governments shoulders.
This is certainly true:
"Now, as countries debate how to combat the virus, some experts here say, the lesson from the British experience may be that governments and scientists worldwide must increase the transparency of their planning so that their thinking and assumptions are open to challenge."
There will be a long inquest when this is all over.
SB [Post edited 8 Apr 2020 10:56]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Piece on the decision making.... on 10:37 - Apr 8 with 900 views | gordon |
"After developing a test for the new virus by January 10, health officials adopted a centralised approach to its deployment, initially assigning a single public laboratory in north London to perform the tests. But, according to later government statements, there was no wider plan envisaged to make use of hundreds of laboratories across the country, both public and private, that could have been recruited.
According to emails and more than a dozen scientists interviewed by Reuters, the government issued no requests to labs for assistance with staff or testing equipment until the middle of March, when many abruptly received requests to hand over nucleic acid extraction instruments, used in testing. An executive at the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine at the University of Oxford said he could have carried out up to 1,000 tests per day from February. But the call never came." |  | | |
| Piece on the decision making.... on 10:51 - Apr 8 with 881 views | Churchman |
| Piece on the decision making.... on 10:35 - Apr 8 by StokieBlue |
Maybe. I think it's fairly clear that the government were acting on advice which is what they should do but that advice wasn't put across in a timely or effective manner:
"But the interviews and documents also reveal that for more than two months, the scientists whose advice guided Downing Street did not clearly signal their worsening fears to the public or the government. Until March 12, the risk level, set by the government's top medical advisers on the recommendation of the scientists, remained at "moderate," suggesting only the possibility of a wider outbreak."
The government can question them but in the end they have to accept the advice given and act on that otherwise what is the point in having the advice?
The other criticisms of the government are entirely fair in that article and they will have to be answers to questions on why meetings were missed etc. That is fully on them.
However I don't believe the timings around the execution of the plan can be fully laid on the governments shoulders.
This is certainly true:
"Now, as countries debate how to combat the virus, some experts here say, the lesson from the British experience may be that governments and scientists worldwide must increase the transparency of their planning so that their thinking and assumptions are open to challenge."
There will be a long inquest when this is all over.
SB [Post edited 8 Apr 2020 10:56]
|
The accountability for the woeful handling of this lies 100% with the government and at the end of this if they have any conscience, they should put it to the people to decide - another general election.
Scientists only advise. If government doesn’t challenge, if necessary consult more widely, that’s down to them. If Chief Medical Officers/advisers did not do their job properly, then they should be moved on after this shambles is over, likewise departments like NHS England if they are not fit for purpose will need replacing or revamping. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Piece on the decision making.... on 11:17 - Apr 8 with 850 views | Herbivore |
| Piece on the decision making.... on 10:35 - Apr 8 by StokieBlue |
Maybe. I think it's fairly clear that the government were acting on advice which is what they should do but that advice wasn't put across in a timely or effective manner:
"But the interviews and documents also reveal that for more than two months, the scientists whose advice guided Downing Street did not clearly signal their worsening fears to the public or the government. Until March 12, the risk level, set by the government's top medical advisers on the recommendation of the scientists, remained at "moderate," suggesting only the possibility of a wider outbreak."
The government can question them but in the end they have to accept the advice given and act on that otherwise what is the point in having the advice?
The other criticisms of the government are entirely fair in that article and they will have to be answers to questions on why meetings were missed etc. That is fully on them.
However I don't believe the timings around the execution of the plan can be fully laid on the governments shoulders.
This is certainly true:
"Now, as countries debate how to combat the virus, some experts here say, the lesson from the British experience may be that governments and scientists worldwide must increase the transparency of their planning so that their thinking and assumptions are open to challenge."
There will be a long inquest when this is all over.
SB [Post edited 8 Apr 2020 10:56]
|
Advisers advise on what they are briefed to advise on. We need to move away from this idea that scientific advice is purely objective and neutral. It isn't. |  |
| |
| Piece on the decision making.... on 11:30 - Apr 8 with 838 views | gordon |
| Piece on the decision making.... on 10:35 - Apr 8 by StokieBlue |
Maybe. I think it's fairly clear that the government were acting on advice which is what they should do but that advice wasn't put across in a timely or effective manner:
"But the interviews and documents also reveal that for more than two months, the scientists whose advice guided Downing Street did not clearly signal their worsening fears to the public or the government. Until March 12, the risk level, set by the government's top medical advisers on the recommendation of the scientists, remained at "moderate," suggesting only the possibility of a wider outbreak."
The government can question them but in the end they have to accept the advice given and act on that otherwise what is the point in having the advice?
The other criticisms of the government are entirely fair in that article and they will have to be answers to questions on why meetings were missed etc. That is fully on them.
However I don't believe the timings around the execution of the plan can be fully laid on the governments shoulders.
This is certainly true:
"Now, as countries debate how to combat the virus, some experts here say, the lesson from the British experience may be that governments and scientists worldwide must increase the transparency of their planning so that their thinking and assumptions are open to challenge."
There will be a long inquest when this is all over.
SB [Post edited 8 Apr 2020 10:56]
|
"The government can question them but in the end they have to accept the advice given and act on that otherwise what is the point in having the advice?"
This isn't really how it works - it's the role of government and the civil service to direct, interpret and implement scientific guidance - if they got the wrong answers then their is shared responsibility - the balance of expertise may have been wrong, they may have asked the wrong questions, asked the wrong people etc etc. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
