4 ms·

Isn't the story itself about a senior government adviser updating his blog, to make it look like he expected the Covid-19 crisis? The fact that the same adviser

Isn't the story itself about a senior government adviser updating his blog, to make it look like he expected the Covid-19 crisis? The fact that the same adviser ignored his own advice, while both sickening, and amusingly ironic, is incidental here. I suppose though, it does help for context. It's basically Steve Bannon all over again.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Tenoke 6y ago
He did expect this, just about pandemics and viruses in general not coronavirus specifically. Honestly, he should get a lot of credit for it (though he ruined that by editing) given that it's something he has talked a lot about.
azernik 6y ago
It's not incidental - he referenced this blog post in a press conference today, in which he responded to this scandal. (Without apologizing, of course.) The two are closely linked politically, as he is trying to defend himself from criticism by touting his supposed prescience.
- dynamite-ready 6y ago
  That, I didn't know.
  - azernik 6y ago
    RTFA, I guess?
    - dynamite-ready 6y ago
      It's still only incidental though. I think another poster said it best, this is about him suggesting he did something he didn't to try and look clever. It's pretty interesting in itself, because Dominic Cummings stands on his body of work as a self styled paragon of scientific governance. Him being an arse is probably somewhat apart from that. Pretty sure he referenced various forms of 'scientific advice' a couple of times in that interview too. We could start leading this discussion towards the subject of him attending impartial scientific advisory meetings (the SAGE scandal). Or we could have a lengthy discussion about his eyesight... I think it's worth drawing a line around stuff like that. If we want to have a wide open political discussion about a key government adviser, we should probably base it on a more relevant story. But it probably would flounce HN rules. Also "RTFA"? Let's be polite. we should be sharing news sources. Not beating each other over the head with them.
- dynamite-ready 6y ago
  To be clearer still, I would love to see him sacked, for a litany of reasons. But this isn't the place to discuss that. At most, I think this article could provide the basis for a decent discussion about what his _real_ opinion on the Covid-19 crisis might be... But not specifically about his journey to Durham. Is that fair?
DanBC 6y ago
> The fact that the same adviser ignored his own advice, while both sickening, and amusingly ironic, is incidental here. It's a bit worse because it's not just "advice" or "guidance", it is also the law. He broke the law. Plenty of people have had fixed penalty notices as a result of breaking that law.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Tenoke 6y ago

He did expect this, just about pandemics and viruses in general not coronavirus specifically. Honestly, he should get a lot of credit for it (though he ruined that by editing) given that it's something he has talked a lot about.

azernik 6y ago

It's not incidental - he referenced this blog post in a press conference today, in which he responded to this scandal. (Without apologizing, of course.) The two are closely linked politically, as he is trying to defend himself from criticism by touting his supposed prescience.

dynamite-ready 6y ago
That, I didn't know.
- azernik 6y ago
  RTFA, I guess?
  - dynamite-ready 6y ago
    It's still only incidental though. I think another poster said it best, this is about him suggesting he did something he didn't to try and look clever. It's pretty interesting in itself, because Dominic Cummings stands on his body of work as a self styled paragon of scientific governance. Him being an arse is probably somewhat apart from that. Pretty sure he referenced various forms of 'scientific advice' a couple of times in that interview too. We could start leading this discussion towards the subject of him attending impartial scientific advisory meetings (the SAGE scandal). Or we could have a lengthy discussion about his eyesight... I think it's worth drawing a line around stuff like that. If we want to have a wide open political discussion about a key government adviser, we should probably base it on a more relevant story. But it probably would flounce HN rules. Also "RTFA"? Let's be polite. we should be sharing news sources. Not beating each other over the head with them.
dynamite-ready 6y ago
To be clearer still, I would love to see him sacked, for a litany of reasons. But this isn't the place to discuss that. At most, I think this article could provide the basis for a decent discussion about what his _real_ opinion on the Covid-19 crisis might be... But not specifically about his journey to Durham. Is that fair?

DanBC 6y ago

> The fact that the same adviser ignored his own advice, while both sickening, and amusingly ironic, is incidental here. It's a bit worse because it's not just "advice" or "guidance", it is also the law. He broke the law. Plenty of people have had fixed penalty notices as a result of breaking that law.