RugbyRebels

The problem with your problem is it relies on a lot of projection. Your fears might prove valid but there's not enough info in the public domain to be sure one way or t'other

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Except as you have alluded to (see COBRA), they don't make decisions. They provide advice.
Role
SAGE is responsible for ensuring that timely and coordinated scientific advice is made available to decision makers to support UK cross-government decisions in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). The advice provided by SAGE does not represent official government policy.

I mean decisions about what scientific advice to present, obviously. No doubt, different views get expressed and a consensus Sage view is arrived at - decisions need to be made to do this (based on science, of course).

I think you are making a judgement about something neither of us know anything about. If scientists/experts get rolled over by the likes of Cummings, then they shouldn't be there. Which raises other questions. Might be worth reading through governance if you are concerned.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... idance.pdf

Thanks - yes, I've had a look at the document.

You think that scientists who get rolled over by the likes of Cummings shouldn't be there. That would be nice, but in reality the experts are selected for their expertise, not their ability to go toe-to-toe with abrasive and powerful political figures.
What if (say) our leading coronavirus vaccine expert is any or all of the following:

1) a brilliant but rather timid character?
2) ambitious, and would quite like to be the next chief scientific adviser?
3) feeling neglected and wants to maximise his chances of a knighthood?

Any of these possibilites (and no doubt others) could cause Cummings to get his way, or change the way a point is expressed, or otherwise cause the meeting to be influenced by non-scientific concerns.

The guardian has some views of Sage members who express concern:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... c-cummings

Digby wrote:The problem with your problem is it relies on a lot of projection. Your fears might prove valid but there's not enough info in the public domain to be sure one way or t'other

I think you have rather missed the point there Diggers old chap.
I have no issue with the government going against the SAGE advice. If, once they receive it, they choose to balance it with say, economic considerations and decide on a policy that isn’t what the sage group consider To be the most effective at stopping the disease then fine. That is a governmental decision and one they can be judged on at a later date/election.

canta_brian wrote:

Digby wrote:The problem with your problem is it relies on a lot of projection. Your fears might prove valid but there's not enough info in the public domain to be sure one way or t'other

I think you have rather missed the point there Diggers old chap.
I have no issue with the government going against the SAGE advice. If, once they receive it, they choose to balance it with say, economic considerations and decide on a policy that isn’t what the sage group consider To be the most effective at stopping the disease then fine. That is a governmental decision and one they can be judged on at a later date/election.

I read your points, if your points are missing your point I don't feel all that culpable

"1: The government claims to be following the science whilst also putting someone on the committee that writes the science either influences it, or appears to influence it.
2: the committee reports to government. At this point Cummings, with his history degree, will sit in. I don’t believe for one second that his having sat through the whole process will enable him to enlighten the government on the science in a manner the scientists can’t."

There's a fair amount of projection in there. I'm not saying you're wrong, merely unless you're on the inside it doesn't seem one could know. I think one could reasonably expect the government to be setting out more information, but to assume you know what's happening and to castigate them for those assumptions seems a tad unfair

Fascinating interview:

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... ssion=true

canta_brian wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I mean decisions about what scientific advice to present, obviously. No doubt, different views get expressed and a consensus Sage view is arrived at - decisions need to be made to do this (based on science, of course).

I think you are making a judgement about something neither of us know anything about. If scientists/experts get rolled over by the likes of Cummings, then they shouldn't be there. Which raises other questions. Might be worth reading through governance if you are concerned.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... idance.pdf

For me the problem is two fold.
1: The government claims to be following the science whilst also putting someone on the committee that writes the science either influences it, or appears to influence it.
2: the committee reports to government. At this point Cummings, with his history degree, will sit in. I don’t believe for one second that his having sat through the whole process will enable him to enlighten the government on the science in a manner the scientists can’t.

Its your hypothesis that he is 'on the committee'. As opposed to being an observer. I don't know either way.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I mean decisions about what scientific advice to present, obviously. No doubt, different views get expressed and a consensus Sage view is arrived at - decisions need to be made to do this (based on science, of course).

I think you are making a judgement about something neither of us know anything about. If scientists/experts get rolled over by the likes of Cummings, then they shouldn't be there. Which raises other questions. Might be worth reading through governance if you are concerned.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... idance.pdf

Thanks - yes, I've had a look at the document.

You think that scientists who get rolled over by the likes of Cummings shouldn't be there. That would be nice, but in reality the experts are selected for their expertise, not their ability to go toe-to-toe with abrasive and powerful political figures.
What if (say) our leading coronavirus vaccine expert is any or all of the following:

1) a brilliant but rather timid character?
2) ambitious, and would quite like to be the next chief scientific adviser?
3) feeling neglected and wants to maximise his chances of a knighthood?

Any of these possibilites (and no doubt others) could cause Cummings to get his way, or change the way a point is expressed, or otherwise cause the meeting to be influenced by non-scientific concerns.

The guardian has some views of Sage members who express concern:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... c-cummings

Thats an awful lot of straw men you are putting up there. I note no sources in the Guardian. But that would fit your theory of Cummings cowing some of the most eminent scientists in the country. Something I struggle with, possible as it may be; they don't get there by being shrinking violets.

canta_brian wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I mean decisions about what scientific advice to present, obviously. No doubt, different views get expressed and a consensus Sage view is arrived at - decisions need to be made to do this (based on science, of course).

I think you are making a judgement about something neither of us know anything about. If scientists/experts get rolled over by the likes of Cummings, then they shouldn't be there. Which raises other questions. Might be worth reading through governance if you are concerned.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... idance.pdf

For me the problem is two fold.
1: The government claims to be following the science whilst also putting someone on the committee that writes the science either influences it, or appears to influence it.
2: the committee reports to government. At this point Cummings, with his history degree, will sit in. I don’t believe for one second that his having sat through the whole process will enable him to enlighten the government on the science in a manner the scientists can’t.

No it doesn't. It claims to be guided by the science which isn't the same thing at all. Halfway decent journalists should have highlighted this. Part of the problem is that there aren't enough people with a basic grasp of science involved, either at the government end nor at that the journalists end. People are still reporting evidence of no where WHO are saying no evidence of.

Digby wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Digby wrote:The problem with your problem is it relies on a lot of projection. Your fears might prove valid but there's not enough info in the public domain to be sure one way or t'other

I think you have rather missed the point there Diggers old chap.
I have no issue with the government going against the SAGE advice. If, once they receive it, they choose to balance it with say, economic considerations and decide on a policy that isn’t what the sage group consider To be the most effective at stopping the disease then fine. That is a governmental decision and one they can be judged on at a later date/election.

I read your points, if your points are missing your point I don't feel all that culpable

"1: The government claims to be following the science whilst also putting someone on the committee that writes the science either influences it, or appears to influence it.
2: the committee reports to government. At this point Cummings, with his history degree, will sit in. I don’t believe for one second that his having sat through the whole process will enable him to enlighten the government on the science in a manner the scientists can’t."

There's a fair amount of projection in there. I'm not saying you're wrong, merely unless you're on the inside it doesn't seem one could know. I think one could reasonably expect the government to be setting out more information, but to assume you know what's happening and to castigate them for those assumptions seems a tad unfair

This.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: I think you are making a judgement about something neither of us know anything about. If scientists/experts get rolled over by the likes of Cummings, then they shouldn't be there. Which raises other questions. Might be worth reading through governance if you are concerned.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... idance.pdf

Thanks - yes, I've had a look at the document.

You think that scientists who get rolled over by the likes of Cummings shouldn't be there. That would be nice, but in reality the experts are selected for their expertise, not their ability to go toe-to-toe with abrasive and powerful political figures.
What if (say) our leading coronavirus vaccine expert is any or all of the following:

1) a brilliant but rather timid character?
2) ambitious, and would quite like to be the next chief scientific adviser?
3) feeling neglected and wants to maximise his chances of a knighthood?

Any of these possibilites (and no doubt others) could cause Cummings to get his way, or change the way a point is expressed, or otherwise cause the meeting to be influenced by non-scientific concerns.

The guardian has some views of Sage members who express concern:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... c-cummings

Thats an awful lot of straw men you are putting up there. I note no sources in the Guardian. But that would fit your theory of Cummings cowing some of the most eminent scientists in the country. Something I struggle with, possible as it may be; they don't get there by being shrinking violets.

I don't think you understand what straw man means.

As for the rest of it, we'll just have to disagree.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Thanks - yes, I've had a look at the document.

You think that scientists who get rolled over by the likes of Cummings shouldn't be there. That would be nice, but in reality the experts are selected for their expertise, not their ability to go toe-to-toe with abrasive and powerful political figures.
What if (say) our leading coronavirus vaccine expert is any or all of the following:

1) a brilliant but rather timid character?
2) ambitious, and would quite like to be the next chief scientific adviser?
3) feeling neglected and wants to maximise his chances of a knighthood?

Any of these possibilites (and no doubt others) could cause Cummings to get his way, or change the way a point is expressed, or otherwise cause the meeting to be influenced by non-scientific concerns.

The guardian has some views of Sage members who express concern:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... c-cummings

Thats an awful lot of straw men you are putting up there. I note no sources in the Guardian. But that would fit your theory of Cummings cowing some of the most eminent scientists in the country. Something I struggle with, possible as it may be; they don't get there by being shrinking violets.

I don't think you understand what straw man means.

As for the rest of it, we'll just have to disagree.

I do- men of straw . And to your use of the phrase which I do understand, are you saying the scientists did get there by being shrinking violets

Excellent interview in the guardian yesterday...

Germany's Covid-19 expert: 'For many, I'm the evil guy crippling the economy'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... _clipboard

Germany's top guy on dealing with the crisis. Particularly interesting, from a UK point of view, on the NHS.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Surely all this nitpicking over stupid details like whether or not Cummings is just listening or doing something more detract from your greater aim as it makes you seem irrational.

There are plenty of things to criticize the government about, you don’t need to invent more ones.

Stom wrote:Surely all this nitpicking over stupid details like whether or not Cummings is just listening or doing something more detract from your greater aim as it makes you seem irrational.

There are plenty of things to criticize the government about, you don’t need to invent more ones.

well yes. But irrationality increases in proportion to lockdown for everyone!

Donny osmond wrote:Excellent interview in the guardian yesterday...

Germany's Covid-19 expert: 'For many, I'm the evil guy crippling the economy'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... _clipboard

Germany's top guy on dealing with the crisis. Particularly interesting, from a UK point of view, on the NHS.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Yep- Mells already posted it. What did you take away from that about the NHS though?

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Excellent interview in the guardian yesterday...

Germany's Covid-19 expert: 'For many, I'm the evil guy crippling the economy'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... _clipboard

Germany's top guy on dealing with the crisis. Particularly interesting, from a UK point of view, on the NHS.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Yep- Mells already posted it. What did you take away from that about the NHS though?

Oops, sorry Mells

I took that the UK is now moving, at a gathering pace, in what the German fella thinks is the right direction in terms of using testing as part of a strategy to get in top if this thing. Also I took that the NHS was probs ahead of the curve initially but, for unknown reasons fell behind.


Projecting now, I assume comments like his will feed into an internal UK debate about the nature of the NHS, with right wingers saying it's too big and unwieldy and that's what lead to falling behind. Not a view I agree with personally, but it's easy enough to understand the reasoning behind it.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Stom wrote:Surely all this nitpicking over stupid details like whether or not Cummings is just listening or doing something more detract from your greater aim as it makes you seem irrational.

There are plenty of things to criticize the government about, you don’t need to invent more ones.

Amen.

Sadly the media is bored by the lack of alternative stories out there so it trying to find any angle to sell their product.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Thats an awful lot of straw men you are putting up there. I note no sources in the Guardian. But that would fit your theory of Cummings cowing some of the most eminent scientists in the country. Something I struggle with, possible as it may be; they don't get there by being shrinking violets.

I don't think you understand what straw man means.

As for the rest of it, we'll just have to disagree.

I do- men of straw . And to your use of the phrase which I do understand, are you saying the scientists did get there by being shrinking violets

Yep, that's a straw man argument alright.
Does the fact that you can't find a better one tell you anything?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I don't think you understand what straw man means.

As for the rest of it, we'll just have to disagree.

I do- men of straw . And to your use of the phrase which I do understand, are you saying the scientists did get there by being shrinking violets

Yep, that's a straw man argument alright.
Does the fact that you can't find a better one tell you anything?

No, because it was a stab at humour with an easy target. As you say, we disagree- you are projecting scenarios that may or may not be true. Personally, I think this gang of scientists would have the cahones to stand up to Cummings, they've been in place for a long time.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: I do- men of straw . And to your use of the phrase which I do understand, are you saying the scientists did get there by being shrinking violets

Yep, that's a straw man argument alright.
Does the fact that you can't find a better one tell you anything?

No, because it was a stab at humour with an easy target. As you say, we disagree- you are projecting scenarios that may or may not be true. Personally, I think this gang of scientists would have the cahones to stand up to Cummings, they've been in place for a long time.

You and your projections

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Yep, that's a straw man argument alright.
Does the fact that you can't find a better one tell you anything?

No, because it was a stab at humour with an easy target. As you say, we disagree- you are projecting scenarios that may or may not be true. Personally, I think this gang of scientists would have the cahones to stand up to Cummings, they've been in place for a long time.

You and your projections

Fair . I perhaps should have also said, I don't even think there would be anything to stand up to, but without knowing anything of the dynamics.....its just projection

Donny osmond wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Excellent interview in the guardian yesterday...

Germany's Covid-19 expert: 'For many, I'm the evil guy crippling the economy'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... _clipboard

Germany's top guy on dealing with the crisis. Particularly interesting, from a UK point of view, on the NHS.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Yep- Mells already posted it. What did you take away from that about the NHS though?

Oops, sorry Mells

I took that the UK is now moving, at a gathering pace, in what the German fella thinks is the right direction in terms of using testing as part of a strategy to get in top if this thing. Also I took that the NHS was probs ahead of the curve initially but, for unknown reasons fell behind.


Projecting now, I assume comments like his will feed into an internal UK debate about the nature of the NHS, with right wingers saying it's too big and unwieldy and that's what lead to falling behind. Not a view I agree with personally, but it's easy enough to understand the reasoning behind it.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Ah- that's what I thought you'd taken away, but it was PHE he called out around testing. That may sound pedantic, but I think its an important distinction. Nobody is going to come out of this well, but imo at least some of the obvious issues are that both PHE and NHSE have essentially command and control, centralised decision making bodies; the former lacked the personnel to execute testing, but wouldn't cede any 'power' to say local operations in the way both Germany (and a federal system worked well here) and South Korea did to get the job done. NHSE, whilst coping in one sense, have a blunt strategy of pretty much closing the rest of the service down- this has lead to unintended but obvious and called out consequences of more non covid deaths in the short term, and storing up trouble for the future; and imo, again had they gone for a less centralised( not a 'one size fits all') strategy, I think we'd be a lot better off. The govt could have done similar on lockdown, possibly, both regionally and a less blunt implementation ; this would have then given them a way of reversing out of lockdown; its quite ironic, as I have been asked almost daily by my customers (the NHS) for a recovery plan since we redeployed our staff and utterly changed our delivery model, yet I think most rational people would cede, it depends on the govt's 'recovery plan' and then the NHS 'recovery plan'......however I persevere with a myriad of scenarios.
What is- and has been needed for ages- is for funding to be taken out of political cycles; for a root and branch review of what structures best serve population needs (and driven much more locally, integrated with social care; this is being tried, but until covid, not really driven hard- one positive, it is now actually working under imperative of Covid). This requires a really grown up set of conversations- every other attempt at reform has been both badly bungled and met with heavy resistance, and the conversations have to include funding.....more is required, but it must be spent well.

I'd hope this crisis leads to a meaningful change in the relationships and structures between govt/doh, PHE, NHS (E, W, S, NI) and the public, and that our health professionals get the support they need and deserve to deliver the care needed, and their input is vital. Do with, not to.

Interesting Banquo, thanks. I certainly am unaware of the complexity of health provision in the UK, and tend to think of 'the NHS' as one all-encompassing organisation that tends to health care but it seems that's not really accurate. If we are to have a national conversation about the future of health care, there will need to be some very clear and careful education on what we have versus the possible options.

I guess it's not really for this thread, or these times, but any party unwilling to sign up to the idea of taking health spending out of the annual budget/ party politics/setting up a cross party group to administer health across long term goals... I think needs to take a long hard look at themselves. The short termism and constant tinkering is one of the things that REALLY needs to change as a result of what we're going thru.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: I do- men of straw . And to your use of the phrase which I do understand, are you saying the scientists did get there by being shrinking violets

Yep, that's a straw man argument alright.
Does the fact that you can't find a better one tell you anything?

No, because it was a stab at humour with an easy target. As you say, we disagree- you are projecting scenarios that may or may not be true. Personally, I think this gang of scientists would have the cahones to stand up to Cummings, they've been in place for a long time.

Sage was only activated for this pandemic in the last few months and its membership isn't public, so how can you say they've been in place for a long time?

Another point which occurs to me concerning Cummings's attendance - which does not depend on the psychological make-up of the scientists:

Being chief advisor to the PM, his attendance circumvents and undermines Sage's authority. This was particularly the case while Johnson wasn't even attending COBRA meetings. At that time he was getting the Sage info via Cummings. So when the government says it was being led by the science, it was actually being led by (the non-scientist) Cummings's second-hand reporting of the Sage view to his boss. And even when Johnson is in COBRA, Cummings is a second channel for the info to the PM - if Sage reports one thing, who is to say that Cummings wouldn't say - well I was there and in fact there were some strong dissenting views etc - thus placing his non-scientific gloss over things. Johnson isn't a scientist - does he really have the background to distinguish between Cummings's "data science" and real science?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Yep, that's a straw man argument alright.
Does the fact that you can't find a better one tell you anything?

No, because it was a stab at humour with an easy target. As you say, we disagree- you are projecting scenarios that may or may not be true. Personally, I think this gang of scientists would have the cahones to stand up to Cummings, they've been in place for a long time.

Sage was only activated for this pandemic in the last few months and its membership isn't public, so how can you say they've been in place for a long time?

Another point which occurs to me concerning Cummings's attendance - which does not depend on the psychological make-up of the scientists:

Being chief advisor to the PM, his attendance circumvents and undermines Sage's authority. This was particularly the case while Johnson wasn't even attending COBRA meetings. At that time he was getting the Sage info via Cummings. So when the government says it was being led by the science, it was actually being led by (the non-scientist) Cummings's second-hand reporting of the Sage view to his boss. And even when Johnson is in COBRA, Cummings is a second channel for the info to the PM - if Sage reports one thing, who is to say that Cummings wouldn't say - well I was there and in fact there were some strong dissenting views etc - thus placing his non-scientific gloss over things. Johnson isn't a scientist - does he really have the background to distinguish between Cummings's "data science" and real science?

Sorry, I meant the core SAGE folks, Whitty, Vallance, Farrar et al. All heavyweights, who've been at it for years.

The rest is yet further projection (from both of us in fairness).

The Institute for Govt think tank have, on the face if it, no issue with Cummings attending. Prof Neil Ferguson has stated that whenever he saw Cummings at SAGE it was as a silent observer only. There are numerous MPs and spads who have said an adviser’s attendance at such meetings is nothing out of the ordinary.
From what I know of him, I think Cummings is a bit of a knob and unsuitable for the inner workings of govt but I, and many others, can’t see how he’s in the wrong here.