By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
"Far too many definite statements have been made on the virus, usually by politicians and journalists," Dr Simon Clarke, associate professor in cellular microbiology at Reading University tells BBC Radio Scotland.
"Nine out of 10 times they are just opinions. There is no such thing as 'the science'. Scientific opinion often varies and views change as we learn more about this new virus."
Well, science is a method not an absolute truth. And it was only one input into the decision making process. Experts advise, politicians decide. And there was an awful lot of scientific advice that was ignored, including the chance to learn from other countries.
Rory Stewart nailed this question. The politicians are there to decide and are held accountable based on the success (or not!) of their decisions.
'We were following the scientific advice we were given' - Get out or no excuse? on 11:41 - Jun 13 by Swansea_Blue
Well, science is a method not an absolute truth. And it was only one input into the decision making process. Experts advise, politicians decide. And there was an awful lot of scientific advice that was ignored, including the chance to learn from other countries.
Rory Stewart nailed this question. The politicians are there to decide and are held accountable based on the success (or not!) of their decisions.
[Post edited 13 Jun 2020 11:52]
The government followed only some of the scientific advice (opinions). They couldn't follow all the advice as some of it would have been contradictory eg Lockdown now v. Lockdown later. The claim that they rejected scientific advice therefore stands (even though some of the advice was probably bat-sh*t crazy). It's a free pass for Starmer to use the "Stick of Hindsight" to bash the Tories as much as possible.
Don't believe a word I say. I'm only kidding. Or am I?
'We were following the scientific advice we were given' - Get out or no excuse? on 11:41 - Jun 13 by Swansea_Blue
Well, science is a method not an absolute truth. And it was only one input into the decision making process. Experts advise, politicians decide. And there was an awful lot of scientific advice that was ignored, including the chance to learn from other countries.
Rory Stewart nailed this question. The politicians are there to decide and are held accountable based on the success (or not!) of their decisions.
[Post edited 13 Jun 2020 11:52]
I think the other really important thing is that there was really very little 'science' in the sense of peer-reviewed research on COVID-19 at the time the key decisions were taken. So while scientists could provide some advice, to say we were 'following the science' is absurd, because hardly any relevant science actually existed.
Those countries that were successful didn't rely on modellers or wait for evidence to justify their decisions - they acted decisively, they acted quickly, they didn't try to wait until the perfect time to make their decisions. The Precautionary Principle over-rode all other considerations.
'The virus will always get you if you don't move quickly.'
3
'We were following the scientific advice we were given' - Get out or no excuse? on 14:30 - Jun 13 with 792 views
'We were following the scientific advice we were given' - Get out or no excuse? on 12:27 - Jun 13 by gordon
I think the other really important thing is that there was really very little 'science' in the sense of peer-reviewed research on COVID-19 at the time the key decisions were taken. So while scientists could provide some advice, to say we were 'following the science' is absurd, because hardly any relevant science actually existed.
Those countries that were successful didn't rely on modellers or wait for evidence to justify their decisions - they acted decisively, they acted quickly, they didn't try to wait until the perfect time to make their decisions. The Precautionary Principle over-rode all other considerations.
'The virus will always get you if you don't move quickly.'
That is a very telling clip, gordon, 'paralysed by the fear of failure' does seem to describe the initial Cabinet response. There was a quite damning analysis of delaying lock down by even a week on this week's 'More or Less':
Also, a vindication of the much maligned precautionary principle. It is looking very clear now that the regimes which denounce it most are in charge of the states which are suffering most.
The whole point of 'scientific advice' is that it should be independent, balanced and transparent - otherwise the entire process is flawed and degenerates into the farce of stomach-turning updates from Downing Street.
Daily we have a debasing spectacle where the same scientists are not allowed to express their opinions, keep quiet with the cheque in the back pocket, or are quietly excluded for refusing to toe the party line and are never seen again - whilst a politician goes through rehearsed and misleading presentation - then dodges pre-supplied questions..
The independent, balanced and transparent alternative Sage panel reporting openly via other channels make a lot more sense - and it is somewhat worrying that this has to happen to get even a modicum of openess in the middle of a shattering health and economic crisis
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
