> When the UK said "we're using different models" they should have been publishing those models, among with the facts they were relying on, published a list of

> When the UK said "we're using different models" they should have been publishing those models, among with the facts they were relying on, published a list of all people who had input to that decision and the context. Everything should be published (it isn't), and nothing should be censored, without good reason (not the case today). That so few people seem to realize this is mind boggling to me. But then, it's human nature, so it shouldn't be surprising. > How to progress? I don't see a way, politicians have enough of the population in their thrall (eg using media manipulation) to sustain the current system. Two things that may help are to have bodies parallel to government adopted ones, like UK's SAGE but excluding the politicians, and have media that will report direct from those bodies to the people rather than via a filter of politicisation. Maybe then enough people can get onboard to bit-by-bit elect trustworthy officials interested in government for the good of the people. This idea, and others like it, seem like a very plausible way out of this mess. I really see no other way. But how much effort, in man-hours, is being expended in this direction, as compared to, oh I don't know, people having the same arguments year after year, in thread after thread?