Is there anyone here who doesn't let politics influence their views of science?

Elegran

No use asking a Round Tuit, even if you can get one.

I've got one!
Bought in Cornwall many years ago!

@volver ?

Been googling like mad.

Now I get it

No use asking a Round Tuit, even if you can get one.

* A’Tuin

Perhaps we need to ask A’Tuit that Volver

Vroom

Headline on the Express website today:

New lockdown warning: Boris refuses to rule out more restrictions over fresh variant fears

What he actually said is that if there is another, more dangerous variant in the future, then lockdown is one of the weapons we have in our armoury.

But I'll bet you a pound to a penny that there are people going around saying they read that there's a new variant and we're all going into lockdown again.

growstuff

volver I know you and I disagree over Covid, but which facts do you claim IndySage have got wrong? You seem to have an obsessional hate for Christina Pagel, but from what I can see, she mainly presents data (that's her expertise, after all) - do you have a problem with her data? What do you think of the Great Barrington Group, whose views seem to have won the day?

I agree with you over face masks. At the beginning of the pandemic, there was no evidence they worked. It would be unethical to carry out an experiment where (say) 100 people were exposed deliberately to infection, with 50 wearing masks and 50 not. However, as time went on and the importance of aerosol transmission was understood and cases did not come down in places where mask wearing was the norm, the evidence base changed. The science got it right.

If you think I hate Pagel, don't get me started on Gurdasani .

I don't think I've ever said that they have got anything wrong, scientifically. But, for instance; Indy SAGE were advocating a semi-lockdown at the start of this year because of the oncoming Omicron wave. Gurdasani something like how the NHS was going to collapse and there would be thousands of cases and deaths. Sorry, I did go and look but I couldn't find it, so it might not be verbatim. That was one prediction but it was way over the top and did not take into account the other impacts that a semi-lockdown would have. Becuase she is not responsible for making that decision, so she has the freedom to demand all sorts of things that may not be practical

In the midst of a pandemic, one thing we need is sensible communication. While we may not agree with everything (anything?) the government has done over Covid, having folk appear on TV and ranting - yes, she rants - that we're all going to die and the government are idiots, isn't the best way to go about things. People who do not have regular exposure to scientific thinking see a band of experts telling them that things are going to be awful and the government is going to kill them.

The Great Barrington Declaration, as I understand it, was only about what action should be taken until a vaccine was available. So I can't see how their ideas have won the day. Not everyone who disagrees with Indy SAGE is a crank who advocates locking vulnerable people away.

Growstuff "At the beginning of the pandemic, there was no evidence they worked. It would be unethical to carry out an experiment where (say) 100 people were exposed deliberately to infection, with 50 wearing masks and 50 not. However, as time went on and the importance of aerosol transmission was understood and cases did not come down in places where mask wearing was the norm, the evidence base changed. "

They (the scientists) can only reach conclusions from the available evidence. Where there IS NO EVIDENCE YET as with Covid at the start of the pandemic, they could only say what could be "worst possible" and "be prepared for the worst" - the best advice given the evidence from previous viruses being that masks cut down infection via the mouth and nose.

Great post Elegran. Even supposedly good news sites like the BBC often have a very misleading headline, even when they present the story less sensationally in the article. Some people will not go further than the headline.

Brilliant post Elegran.

volver I know you and I disagree over Covid, but which facts do you claim IndySage have got wrong? You seem to have an obsessional hate for Christina Pagel, but from what I can see, she mainly presents data (that's her expertise, after all) - do you have a problem with her data? What do you think of the Great Barrington Group, whose views seem to have won the day?

I agree with you over face masks. At the beginning of the pandemic, there was no evidence they worked. It would be unethical to carry out an experiment where (say) 100 people were exposed deliberately to infection, with 50 wearing masks and 50 not. However, as time went on and the importance of aerosol transmission was understood and cases did not come down in places where mask wearing was the norm, the evidence base changed. The science got it right.

Rosie51

Nobody is denying that all humans are valid VioletSky. Perhaps you'd like to acknowledge that a 1 % difference doesn't equate to a 100% switch in normalisation.
I loved Magdalene Burns, she who died tragically young. Her catchphrase was so appropriate.
Nobody has a monopoly on compassion, insight, inclusiveness, niceness, validity, or any other quality no matter how sickly sweet they portray themselves. That's a general observation, not specific to anyone

I don't understand your comment

If the experts spoke directly to us over a cuppa, they would say, for instance, "I've looked at the evidence, and it shows that it could rain a lot today. The worst thing that could happen is that we all get drenched and get pneumonia, and our houses are flooded. It may happen, or it may not happen, but it is quite possible that it will, so we had better be prepared for it. My advice is to put on a raincoat if you go out and take an umbrella, and avoid leaving your windows too wide open."

So you see your neighbour over the fence and tell her "It will be a downpour. You must not go out without a sou wester and a golf umbrella or you will end up in intensive care. Oh, and your home will be flooded out."

Note the words the scientist used - could, quite possible, may, may not, advice, best be prepared for the worst Now your words to your neighbour - will be a downpour, must not, will end up in intensive care, will be flooded out. Who is responsible for the neighbour being scared witless, you or the scientist? If the media alter the meaning of what a scientist has said they are doing exactly the same thing

Then look at two scenarios.

1) As above - evidence shows what could be the "worst possible" and the media emphasises the worst and spreads the bad news gleefully, but it doesn't come to the worst. It rains, but not as heavily as the "worst possible" that it could have. The storm drains cope, so there are no flooded streets. Because the bad weather was forecast, there were no windows wide open to the rain, so no carpets or sofas were ruined. People go about their business as usual, but wearing their raincoats and wellies (as advised) and have umbrellas ready for the worst of the rain. No-one gets soaked through so no-one gets pneumonia. Your neighbour is very angry that the scientists predicted such disaster and worried her into a near nervous breakdown about her safety and her ruined soft furnishings.

2) The experts don't mention the possibility of the "worst possible" for fear of worrying people, but the worst is what happens. No-one expects bad weather, so it comes as a surprise when the heavens open and a year's rainfall happens in ten minutes. No-one has a coat, let alone a raincoat and an umbrella. People fall into over-flowing rivers. Windows are open so carpets are soaked. The streets flood, the storm drains can't cope, cars are washed away, the floodwater pours in under doors and fills up the ground floors of houses in low-lying places.

Scientists and experts have to pass on their expertise, which they have spent decades of hard work to gain, citing the evidence and giving reasons for their conclusions. They can only reach those conclusions from the available evidence. Where there IS NO EVIDENCE YET as with Covid at the start of the pandemic, they can only say what could be "worst possible" and "be prepared for the worst"

The media pass it on further, to the public, and they have a duty to put in some work too, at understanding what they are passing on and giving a truthful and realistic picture of it. Unfortunately, the media loves a sensational story, or a conspiracy, so the public often gets a distorted version - which then whizzes round the world faster than the genuine reports, and is very hard to replace with reality.

DaisyAnne, oh, I know... ??‍♀️

Goodness Volver, will you never learn . For those with no drive to search for knowledge the expectation is that their opinion is equal to the truth. I go back to my currently favourite example - with a twist.

It doesn't matter if an expert says it is raining or if both expert and close-minded opinion giver can see the rain out of the window. They think their opinion is equal and as factual as anything they can see or that anyone else actually knows. Weird but true. The next thing, if you contradict them, is usually to tell you that you are being rude for not accepting their opinion as fact.

No, really, you have misunderstood.

I've interpreted it in the way that suits my point of view

That's not how it works, its not a piece of literature you get to interpret how you like.

Why do people think they get to have an opinion of science when they really have no idea what it all means?

Yes volver but I feel just as strongly the other way.

I haven't misunderstood anything - I've interpreted it in the way that suits my point of view, exactly as you have, and everybody else does.

It doesn't mean I'm wrong or that my point of view is wrong. In fact, I am amazed that people can't see what is so blindingly obvious, despite what government and/or 'science' tells us.

Neither of those things mean that “science got it badly wrong” LilacChaser.

Worst case scenarios are just what they say they are – the worst possible thing that could happen. Not a forecast of what is actually going to happen. So when the newspapers decide to portray these models as predictions, it’s the newspapers stirring up worry and fear, not the scientists getting it wrong. The scientists who popped their heads up were mainly the members of Indy SAGE; I know many people disagree with me about this but this example just shows what can happen when unaccountable groups of people, like Indy SAGE, portray themselves as the people who know best. The message gets misunderstood and it undermines trust in science.

(As for COVID rates in the various home countries, you might want to check where they are now.)

Now, facemasks. You might have argued yourself blue in the face, but that doesn’t mean that you got it right. At the beginning of the pandemic, Harries was right; there was no scientific evidence of their effectiveness either way. “No scientific evidence”, not “they don’t work”. That was two years ago. As we have gained a better understanding of the effect of facemasks, the advice changed because now we do have evidence. I don’t recall the government “shutting her up” but I suspect they were aware that people would hear her making a scientific statement and completely misunderstand it, as you have.

(Sorry to jump in and answer growstuff, but this is something I feel strongly about.)

Growstuff

Science got it badly wrong during the covid pandemic in 2 ways - their predictions were modelled on 'worse case scenarios' and not on what had actually happened, as reported on by the majority of newspapers at the time. So when BJ eased restrictions, scientists immediately popped their heads up and warned us all of the dire consequences (which never happened - covid rates in England actually dropped after the easing of restrictions, and went up in Wales and Scotland despite them both keeping restrictions).

The second way the science was wrong was in insisting facemasks were effective. I've argued until I'm blue in the face about how ineffective they were, and I'm not going to repeat myself here. But I do remember how Dr Jennie Harries, Deputy Chief Medical Officer at the time, said right at the beginning of the introduction of face masks, that there was no scientific evidence on their effectiveness either way. She was hastily shut up by the government; and this is what I mean about the government influencing science, and vice versa.

No, I'm not really int fantasy books.

Isn't it a Native American story of the origins of Earth?
Or Native Australian but I think that's the Sun.

Callistemon21

The turtle I mean.
?

Are you reading Terry Pratchett by any chance?

Rosie51

I think somebody, anybody, needs to prove that sexual reproduction can be achieved by anything other than a large immotile gamete being fertilised by a small motile gamete. Ask anyone involved in IVF and they'll happily explain which gamete comes from which sex.

Thank you Rosie51.
Of course, I accept that, because, being open minded means that I can observe biological facts in action, whereas . . .

Nobody is denying that all humans are valid VioletSky. Perhaps you'd like to acknowledge that a 1 % difference doesn't equate to a 100% switch in normalisation.
I loved Magdalene Burns, she who died tragically young. Her catchphrase was so appropriate.
Nobody has a monopoly on compassion, insight, inclusiveness, niceness, validity, or any other quality no matter how sickly sweet they portray themselves. That's a general observation, not specific to anyone

That's because I am open minded to the very real possibility that basic biology is just that, basic. We are so much more complex. We all look different, sound different, have different strengths and weaknesses. Individual to us.