| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government’s former Chief Scientific Adviser, has been giving his evidence to the Covid Enquiry.
Sir Patrick kept a diary which recorded that on multiple occasions from February to September 2020 the PM appeared bamboozled by scientific advice.
Given his job title, does that not suggest that Sir Patrick was totally incompetent?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Are you saying that when the pols said we must listen to the science they weren't? I agree though there should be a Chief Advisor as to What's Science somewhere on the payroll.
PS His nickname in Whitehall was 'Taking a Liberty' Vallance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
I am saying that it was surely his job to ensure that both all the scientific advice being given was done so in a reasonably comprehensible matter, and also that once the advice was given, it had been fully understood by those who had been given it.
Personally I think it reflects well on Boris if he rang him up to recheck the difference between absolute and relative risk. It might not be difficult, but it shows the PM wanted to get it right.
Maybe Sir Patrick was in the wrong job. Maybe he is part of the reason why we ended up using modelling forecasts that were so poorly computer coded, and not properly understood.
Too important to pick up the phone and say you didn't understand, Sir Patrick?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| I am saying that it was surely his job to ensure that both all the scientific advice being given was done so in a reasonably comprehensible matter, and also that once the advice was given, it had been fully understood by those who were being given it. |
This presupposes that 'all the scientific advice' has some meaning. We saw in startling clarity during Covid that there was no science, only scientists. They spoke in scientific terms, they even appealed frequently to the scientific method, but in reality they were just civil servants i.e. using customary practice -- tried and trusted practice -- and applying it -- quite rationally -- to an uncustomary problem. The difference was that invoking 'science' brooks no argument. Except from other scientists in which case everything was reduced to a medieval court: who had the king's ear?
| Personally I think it reflects well on Boris if he rang him up to recheck the difference between absolute and relative risk. It might not be difficult, but it shows the PM wanted to get it right. |
And Sir Pat would say, "Well that one's absolute, and that one is relative"?
| Maybe Sir Patrick was in the wrong job. Maybe he is part of the reason why we ended up using modelling forecasts that were so poorly computer coded, and not properly understood. |
That is an AE problem. Trying to persuade a Scientific Adviser that science is not the solution. Of course there was lots of science -- including the scientific method -- when it came to producing vaccines -- and there Boris did do well. Though I could not say whether absolutely or relatively.
| Too important to pick up the phone and say you didn't understand, Sir Patrick? |
Another AE problem. In a scientific situation the Scientific Advisor(s) are always going to be too important. We can only thank our lucky stars they didn't do a Hubble and start mixing up centimeters and inches. Though they still managed to get the predicted casualty figures out by orders of magnitude.
PS Though I was joking about Liberty Vallance. It was Liberty Bodice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
This enquiry has shown so far that the only one in number ten capable of original thought was Boris.
He was right to ask whether it mattered if old people died. Also, he noticed straight away that it didn't matter what you did, the graphs continued in the same direction.
Vallance and Whitty are mere administrators, not in any way true scientists.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| This enquiry has shown so far that the only one in number ten capable of original thought was Boris. |
Or listening to Dominic Cummings, the only one in Number Ten capable of original thought. [For good or evil.]
| He was right to ask whether it mattered if old people died. Also, he noticed straight away that it didn't matter what you did, the graphs continued in the same direction. |
This encapsulates the whole shazaam. Rishi is getting it in the neck for making the same point and he's going to come in for a lot of grief when it's his turn to testify. Are the electorate mature enough to understand it's the Chancellor's job to keep the economy going despite people dying in their (relative) droves? It's not his job to make the overall decision.
| Vallance and Whitty are mere administrators, not in any way true scientists. |
This encapsulates the whole AE shazaam. Is a doctor a scientist? Is an academic?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
The decision to "follow the science".
Sir Patrick helpfully tells the enquiry that he initially welcomed the use of the phrase to "follow the science" as it showed ministers were “listening to us” which “is not always the case in Government”
So he was presumably supportive.
He then realised that Ministers were hiding behind this "mantra."
It's a shame that he hadn't told anyone that "follow the Science" was a "mantra" (spiritual mumbo jumbo) at the start. This was surely his job as the man charged with co-ordinating scientific advice across government. His tactical decision to keep quiet, as ministers at the start were "listening to us" (he means agreeing), did have consequences. He needs to own that, rather than blame ministers.
Sir Patrick also really needs to tell us why SAGE had no molecular virologists, no immunologist, and no-one working at the frontline of the pandemic, ie those in public health, primary care or intensive care. Yet it had, amongst others, 7 modellers, two political advisors and a civil servant.
It is not a minister's job to know who should have been the attendees of SAGE. That sounds more like the job of the person with the responsibility of co-ordinating scientific advice across government.
The problem, in part, was similar to the age old one, of a warring general modelling an ideal strategy, using simplistic slogans, whilst ignoring dissenting views, and also ignoring advice and feedback from their own soldiers on the front line.
They were saving the NHS being overun, without listening to those actually running the front line NHS. This is whay they built a Nightingale hospital. This is not to say the motivation was not good, it is to state that by not listening you make mistakes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
This is all good and true but let's not forget all countries similar to our own adopted polices similar to our own and had consequences similar to our own. (With maybe the Sweden model an outlier -- they modified their position later.) The overarching requirement for all governments facing novel-but-grim situations is to
(a) give the impression something is being done
(b) give the impression everything is being done
(c) ensure significant portions of the population do not dissent in any dangerous way to policies generated by (a) and (b)
(d) arrive at a position afterwards which is as close to the status quo ante as is practicable.
We did all these things reasonably successfully. It may well be that Sweden's was the correct model. It may even be that Sweden-on-stilts - i.e. doing nothing other than treat the Covid epidemic as a mega-bad flu season -- was the correct strategy. But Sweden-lite still shouldn't have been adopted because it breaks (a) and (b) and they only got away with it because they have a particularly homogenous and law-abiding (c).
And, I suppose, because they were right. Or at any rate not demonstrably wrong. Demonstratingly wrong. Can you imagine the ructions if the initial Cummings/Boris/Rishi model had been persevered with?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
PS Newsnight spent a great deal of their Covid Enquiry analysis time interviewing an articulate woman who had lost her father to Covid but who had no better qualifications to analyse government policy than any other man in the street. These tendentious applications of blame-culture are getting completely out of hand. See also Gaza and Ukraine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Economic Illiteracy in High Places
Tobias Ellwood, Tory MP, : Labour will need to borrow to make ends meet.
Victoria Derbyshire: No, no, NO! It's to invest.
M J Harper: Yes, Vicky, but they will have to borrow to make ends meet if their ends include investment, won't they?
Kate Bell, Assistant Gen-Sec TUC: The Labour Party will blah blah blah, golden uplands, New Jerusalem etc etc
Victoria Derbyshire: Yes, but immediately Labour will either have to accept Tory spending levels on the public services or raise taxes, won't they.
Kate Bell: That's for the Labour Party to decide.
M J Harper: Serving two masters is a bitch.
Tobias Ellwood: We are good at innovating. We can be a new Silicon Valley.
M J Harper: Two words in your shell-like, Tobs. Britain hasn't been good at innovating for at least fifty years. And the one thing we know for certain sure is that where new silicon valleys arise is in the Lap of the Gods, not Tory governments.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Pouria Hadjibagheri, I think I love you
Who? He was the bloke who invented the COVID dashboard -- you know, the one with the numbers who've died today or had had their vaccines or whatever-- thereby revolutionising our understanding of what was going on. Victoria tried valiantly to get him to savage the government but, he patiently explained, stupidity was part of the human condition. "Just like you, Ms Derbyshire," he didn't say with a winning smile.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | This is all good and true but let's not forget all countries similar to our own adopted polices similar to our own and had consequences similar to our own.
|
True. But herd behaviour is not always the best. People will herd when undertaking difficult decisions during uncertain times, as it is far easier to fit in and copy the rest (or in this case, China) as we perceive safety in numbers. It can be a rational way of doing things, but it can also lead to unintended bad outcomes.(Financial crashes).
That should be one element of the Enquiry, they should be brave enough to ask not just whether politicians and scientists were "right" but also whether in fact dissenting opinions were listened to, critically tested and investigated.
Uncritical herding behaviour can be very dangerous when you are maybe slipping into crisis, although Wiley appreciates it is still better than blind panic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| True. But herd behaviour is not always the best. People will herd when undertaking difficult decisions during uncertain times, as it is far easier to fit in and copy the rest (or in this case, China) as we perceive safety in numbers. It can be a rational way of doing things, but it can also lead to unintended bad outcomes.(Financial crashes). |
My point was that it is no use adopting the best solution if it is not the herd solution because the herd will rise up and prevent it.
| That should be one element of the Enquiry, they should be brave enough to ask not just whether politicians and scientists were "right" but also whether in fact dissenting opinions were listened to, critically tested and investigated. |
Yes, of course. Herds are intelligent and will choose the best policy, as identified by the Enquiry, when it happens again. They will rise up if it is not adopted. It will be unfortunate if meanwhile we have discovered there is an even better solution or if this problem only looks like the same problem etc etc...
| Uncritical herding behaviour can be very dangerous when you are maybe slipping into crisis, although Wiley appreciates it is still better than blind panic. |
AE regards scientists -- academics generally -- as an uncritical herd. Politicians are less so because they have to react to far more and far more changing inputs than scientists or academics ever have to. The role of blind panic is not something I have thought about. Maybe it's time!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Tobias Ellwood: We are good at innovating. We can be a new Silicon Valley.
M J Harper: Two words in your shell-like, Tobs. Britain hasn't been good at innovating for at least fifty years. And the one thing we know for certain sure is that where new silicon valleys arise is in the Lap of the Gods, not Tory governments. |
| wiki wrote: | | Depending on what geographic regions are included in the meaning of the term, the population of Silicon Valley is between 3.5 and 4 million. A 1999 study by AnnaLee Saxenian for the Public Policy Institute of California reported that a third of Silicon Valley scientists and engineers were immigrants and that nearly a quarter of Silicon Valley's high-technology firms since 1980 were run by Chinese (17 percent) or Indian descent CEOs (7 percent).[84] There is a stratum of well-compensated technical employees and managers, including tens of thousands of "single-digit millionaires". This income and range of assets will support a middle-class lifestyle in Silicon Valley.[85] |
You are so negative, Mick, there are plenty of enticing brown field and greyfield sites (disued car parks) ready to be developed. There will be fantastic enticing new homes for all these thousands of immigrant wannabe millionaire entrepreneurs. In fact, there is a derelict chippie I know of which was turned into a vape place. What a waste. With a couple of mock Corinthian columns and a few sympathetically placed Italian cypresses, it would have been more than adequate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqWt49o7R-k
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
Most worrying thing about the pandemic is that we've only had the ability for middle class people to work from home for about five years. Prior to that few had fast internet speeds, or any internet.
So as soon as this became almost universal it took less than ten years for the technocrats to panic about an over-rated bug and nearly destroy our economies.
Will this happen again? Certainly, unless we learn our lesson. The WHO needs to be shut down, together with the CDC and all the other acronyms which are paid to spread panic
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
