5 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat, I didn't know.
- azernik 6y agoRTFA, I guess?
- dynamite-ready 6y agoIt'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 agoTo 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?