5 ms·

UK listened to scientists about coronavirus who were slow to sound the alarm

18 points by abhi3 7y ago

LatteLazy 7y ago
The same article was submitted yesterday. I think it is very one sided. Even the facts it includes (Boris was warned of 100k deaths, in writing), it somehow glosses over to blame political appointees who become scientists despitw not being scientists... The UKs current government actually make Trump etc look good on this subject. It's official policy that scientists cannot question government decisions. The party in power has "had enough of experts". Everyone without sufficient ideological purity had been sacked (the chancellor of the exchequer, traditionally the second most powerful person in the country is was given the job because he is loyal, he has no previous ministerial experience). Don't let the ignorance and incompetence (or total disregard for the nation) be blamed on anything but the people in charge.
- nailer 7y ago
  > It's official policy that scientists cannot question government decisions. The party in power has "had enough of experts" Can you provide a reference for either or both of these? Regarding the first, the scientists lead the government to making decisions. As you read in the article: > Until March 12, the risk level, set by the government’s top medical advisers on the recommendation of the scientists, remained at “moderate,” suggesting only the possibility of a wider outbreak. I you're suggesting the government is ignoring the scientists, this is incorrect given the evidence we've seen so far. I believe "had enough of experts" was a Michael Gove quote related to Brexit, not related to the pandemic, and you've cut it short: “I think the people in this country have had enough of experts... from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong." Michael Gove, Sky News, 3 June 2016 https://fullfact.org/blog/2016/sep/has-public-really-had-enough-experts/ https://fullfact.org/blog/2016/sep/has-public-really-had-eno...
  - LatteLazy 7y ago
    You've provided you're own reference for having "had enough of experts". For being sacked for questioning policy, look into the experience of Dr David Nutt. Sacked for questioning government drug policy. Or the Badger culls. I think you've missed my point a bit with your quote: it's easy to get all the scientists to agree with your policy if you start sacking anyone who doesn't isn't it? And that's what the UK government (this one is particularly bad but other too) always do. Science is a justification for predecided policy. Science doesn't set policy. And per the article, the government didn't even manage that. Boris was clearly warned 100k people would die. He got that in writing. His choice was to do nothing. But it's scientists' fault he ignored that. Even as he watched and laughed at other western nations both having massive issues and issuing their own isolation policies. The truth here is that this is what happens when you behave this way. It's actually very childish to complain you were warned but it doesn't count because you were not warned enough...
    - nailer 7y ago
      Well no, the quote regarding "had enough of experts" wasn't a reference for your argument, it was pointing out that you seem to manipulating a quote by cutting it to mean something different and attributing it to a different topic. David Nutt was indeed fired by the Conservatives for making evidence based recommendations about drug policy. I believe at the time Boris Johnson was the Foreign Secretary. I'm not sure how you attribute firing someone over drug decriminalisation recommendations to the Foreign Secretary. We're done here.
      - LatteLazy 7y ago
        >We're done here. Lol.
- BTinfinity 7y ago
  >the chancellor of the exchequer, traditionally the second most powerful person in the country is was given the job because he is loyal, he has no previous ministerial experience The current Chancellor of the Exchequer is Rishi Sunak, he was previously Chief Secretary to the Treasury. That is the third most senior ministerial title in the Treasury. To say he has no Ministerial experience is more than a little misleading.
  - LatteLazy 7y ago
    Maybe it is misleading, I'm sorry if you think so. But when was the last time the third person at the treasury was suddenly given the top job? Or at the foreign or home offices? How many people knew his name before he was suddenly the perfect candidate by virtue of experience?
    - mjw1007 7y ago
      I think Normal Lamont in 1990 was the last chancellor to be promoted directly from chief secretary to the treasury (which is in fact the second most senior position in the treasury). His predecessor, John Major, entered the cabinet as chief secretary to the treasury, was promoted to foreign secretary two years later, and to chancellor three months after that.
      - LatteLazy 7y ago
        Major did well, he only had 5 years of experience when he became Chancellor. Rishi had 2, both more junior than any of majors. I wonder if Rishi will do better than Major (recession, expulsion from the ERM, Mad cow, confidence votes)...

18 points by abhi3 7y ago

The same article was submitted yesterday. I think it is very one sided. Even the facts it includes (Boris was warned of 100k deaths, in writing), it somehow glosses over to blame political appointees who become scientists despitw not being scientists... The UKs current government actually make Trump etc look good on this subject. It's official policy that scientists cannot question government decisions. The party in power has "had enough of experts". Everyone without sufficient ideological purity had been sacked (the chancellor of the exchequer, traditionally the second most powerful person in the country is was given the job because he is loyal, he has no previous ministerial experience). Don't let the ignorance and incompetence (or total disregard for the nation) be blamed on anything but the people in charge.

nailer 7y ago
> It's official policy that scientists cannot question government decisions. The party in power has "had enough of experts" Can you provide a reference for either or both of these? Regarding the first, the scientists lead the government to making decisions. As you read in the article: > Until March 12, the risk level, set by the government’s top medical advisers on the recommendation of the scientists, remained at “moderate,” suggesting only the possibility of a wider outbreak. I you're suggesting the government is ignoring the scientists, this is incorrect given the evidence we've seen so far. I believe "had enough of experts" was a Michael Gove quote related to Brexit, not related to the pandemic, and you've cut it short: “I think the people in this country have had enough of experts... from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong." Michael Gove, Sky News, 3 June 2016 https://fullfact.org/blog/2016/sep/has-public-really-had-enough-experts/ https://fullfact.org/blog/2016/sep/has-public-really-had-eno...
- LatteLazy 7y ago
  You've provided you're own reference for having "had enough of experts". For being sacked for questioning policy, look into the experience of Dr David Nutt. Sacked for questioning government drug policy. Or the Badger culls. I think you've missed my point a bit with your quote: it's easy to get all the scientists to agree with your policy if you start sacking anyone who doesn't isn't it? And that's what the UK government (this one is particularly bad but other too) always do. Science is a justification for predecided policy. Science doesn't set policy. And per the article, the government didn't even manage that. Boris was clearly warned 100k people would die. He got that in writing. His choice was to do nothing. But it's scientists' fault he ignored that. Even as he watched and laughed at other western nations both having massive issues and issuing their own isolation policies. The truth here is that this is what happens when you behave this way. It's actually very childish to complain you were warned but it doesn't count because you were not warned enough...
  - nailer 7y ago
    Well no, the quote regarding "had enough of experts" wasn't a reference for your argument, it was pointing out that you seem to manipulating a quote by cutting it to mean something different and attributing it to a different topic. David Nutt was indeed fired by the Conservatives for making evidence based recommendations about drug policy. I believe at the time Boris Johnson was the Foreign Secretary. I'm not sure how you attribute firing someone over drug decriminalisation recommendations to the Foreign Secretary. We're done here.
    - LatteLazy 7y ago
      >We're done here. Lol.
BTinfinity 7y ago
>the chancellor of the exchequer, traditionally the second most powerful person in the country is was given the job because he is loyal, he has no previous ministerial experience The current Chancellor of the Exchequer is Rishi Sunak, he was previously Chief Secretary to the Treasury. That is the third most senior ministerial title in the Treasury. To say he has no Ministerial experience is more than a little misleading.
- LatteLazy 7y ago
  Maybe it is misleading, I'm sorry if you think so. But when was the last time the third person at the treasury was suddenly given the top job? Or at the foreign or home offices? How many people knew his name before he was suddenly the perfect candidate by virtue of experience?
  - mjw1007 7y ago
    I think Normal Lamont in 1990 was the last chancellor to be promoted directly from chief secretary to the treasury (which is in fact the second most senior position in the treasury). His predecessor, John Major, entered the cabinet as chief secretary to the treasury, was promoted to foreign secretary two years later, and to chancellor three months after that.
    - LatteLazy 7y ago
      Major did well, he only had 5 years of experience when he became Chancellor. Rishi had 2, both more junior than any of majors. I wonder if Rishi will do better than Major (recession, expulsion from the ERM, Mad cow, confidence votes)...