Blame the science

ForssAwakens

ForssAwakens

Well-known member
Asked if the government had, in hindsight, got the approach to care homes wrong, Ms Coffey told Kay Burley@Breakfast that "you can only make judgements and decisions based on the information and advice that you have at the time".
Pressed again, she replied: "If the science was wrong, the advice at the time was wrong, I'm not surprised if people then think we made a wrong decision.
"But you have to take judgements based on what you have."
 
bear66 said:
23 March - although the law was passed a few days later.
Click to expand...
So peak of deaths is pretty much a given as the 8th April. Usual time for infection to death is 2 to 3 weeks yes?
So what the **** has the lockdown actually achieved apart from ******* everybody off?

If the science is wrong which it can be like everything else they should also be held accountable with the government. Or are we intent on blaming everything on one person?
 
RandySavage said:
So peak of deaths is pretty much a given as the 8th April. Usual time for infection to death is 2 to 3 weeks yes?
So what the **** has the lockdown actually achieved apart from ******* everybody off?

If the science is wrong which it can be like everything else they should also be held accountable with the government. Or are we intent on blaming everything on one person?
Click to expand...
The peak would have been ten times higher without the lockdown. And a quarter of what it was if we'd locked down 10 days sooner - approximately.
 
Randy, your post pre-supposes that the government acted on all advice and in the manner and spirit in which the advice was intended. So for example:

GVT: What should we do?
SAGE: Lockdown
GVT: Total lockdown?
SAGE: Yes
GVT: We can't do that, what other alternatives do we have?
SAGE: You could go for partial lockdown, it may cost 30,000 more deaths though
GVT: OK thats the way forward then.

Now I, obviously, made up that conversation, but it would not surprise me if the "best scientific advice" was ignored in favour of half measures. The evidence I have for this is redacted SAGE reports. I can't really think of any other explanation for redacting scientific advice from a security perspective, so it can only be that the government doesn't want us to know some of the things that were discussed and advised.
 
Look I'm not blaming the scientists because we don't have all the facts. We know the government have cocked up, that is pretty much a given. But everybody has cocked up during this.

Ferguson's model has been universally panned but was monumental in deciding a lockdown in this country and some say the yanks looked at his model too and used data from it.
 
Sage - A sage, in classical philosophy, is someone who has attained wisdom. They didn't show that much wisdom, did they?
Can imagine Mr Cummings dominating proceedings..threatening careers and kneecapping.
 
The jobs I had in science in the private sector had NDA's. Government scientists will be subject to the Official Secrets Act(s), my postgrad research project was for the MoD and I had to sign.
 
FartingGnome said:
The jobs I had in science in the private sector had NDA's. Government scientists will be subject to the Official Secrets Act(s), my postgrad research project was for the MoD and I had to sign.
Click to expand...

Gnome, would these NDA's stand if you felt that the body you were advising misrepresented your work, possibly damaging your reputation?
 
bear66 said:
The peak would have been ten times higher without the lockdown. And a quarter of what it was if we'd locked down 10 days sooner - approximately.
Click to expand...

That's pure speculation there is 0 evidence for this.. you really are a piece of work sometimes.
 
What about all the renowned and decorated scientists that have since debunked the government's scientists? The scientists who have changed their opinion based on New evidence (as science should be).
The only debate is did we lockdown soon enough.
The debate should be has the lockdown been at all effective.
 
SAGE advisors aren't paid for their role so I guess legal obligation to an NDA would be weak.

I found something in a 2011 consultation paper that said NDAs should only be used in exceptional circumstances.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Gnome, would these NDA's stand if you felt that the body you were advising misrepresented your work, possibly damaging your reputation?
Click to expand...

Sorry. can't help there. Only things that happened to me was work I did credited to somebody else, not much you can do about it.

In this case, though, I'd be surprised (to say the least) if the scientists weren't bound by Official Secrets (as was). Not sure what that act looks like these days, the Act was changed in 1989.
 
FartingGnome said:
Sorry. can't help there. Only things that happened to me was work I did credited to somebody else, not much you can do about it.
Click to expand...

The Gov may try to dishonestly blame the scientific advice but they have no control over whistleblowers, and I would hope that some would have the nerve to take that road.
 
Alvez_48 said:
That's pure speculation there is 0 evidence for this.. you really are a piece of work sometimes.
Click to expand...
I couldn't reply to that statement as it was guesswork much like the 'R' number and the excess deaths for this year as the FT have conquered time travel and worked out the excess deaths for the full year already.
 
RandySavage said:
I couldn't reply to that statement as it was guesswork much like the 'R' number and the excess deaths for this year as the FT have conquered time travel and worked out the excess deaths for the full year already.
Click to expand...

The times keep claiming that excess deaths not counted as covid deaths are covid deaths by extension wether its covid or not because of the effect of lockdown. It boils my ****, no we had options, we had different approaches it's the media in this country that led the government. No scientists , no strong leaders, the media whipping up us plebs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top