 |
By *andR510 OP Couple
over a year ago
St Neots/Wisbech |
All these recommendations from SAGE seem to be based on a worst case scenario, yet this morning there's been emeritus professors and other experts debunking these findings and providing alternative measures.
So which set of experts do we believe ?
The handling of this virus has been atrocious based on the government's current scientific information, so is it time for a change ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"All these recommendations from SAGE seem to be based on a worst case scenario, yet this morning there's been emeritus professors and other experts debunking these findings and providing alternative measures.
So which set of experts do we believe ?
The handling of this virus has been atrocious based on the government's current scientific information, so is it time for a change ? "
I don’t think it needs changing per se however it could do with tweaking. Professor Carl Heneghan when giving evidence to the commons select committee recommended reducing the sensitivity of the pcr test so that we are only picking up those who are infected and infectious. Concentrating on those individuals and their close contacts would take pressure off the testing system.
At the moment we are finding people who have had the disease in the past and are no longer infectious. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
SAGE is a bunch of scientists and I doubt they are in unanimous agreement among one another.
The government has to decide policy and have chosen to publicise the worst-case scenario. Maybe not the most likely but on the other hand it is a clearer and simpler message then a whole list of different models with different outcomes (which is presumably what SAGE would have discussed). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andR510 OP Couple
over a year ago
St Neots/Wisbech |
"SAGE is a bunch of scientists and I doubt they are in unanimous agreement among one another.
The government has to decide policy and have chosen to publicise the worst-case scenario. Maybe not the most likely but on the other hand it is a clearer and simpler message then a whole list of different models with different outcomes (which is presumably what SAGE would have discussed). "
So not a true representation of the severity then ?
Some say this, others say that, but ultimately its agreed that its better to overreact than let people use their common sense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dsindyTV/TS
over a year ago
East Lancashire |
"Plan for the worst, that way you are covered in any eventuality.
So just ignore other experts and cast their alternative plans off as rubbish then ?
"
No....as it says, plan for the worst. Dont think I mentioned anywhere to ignore or rubbish other plans....let me check......nope I did not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dsindyTV/TS
over a year ago
East Lancashire |
In fact, i was agreeing with last part of your earlier post....unless you were being sarcastic? I do not know if you were or not.
"
Some say this, others say that, but ultimately its agreed that its better to overreact than let people use their common sense. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"All these recommendations from SAGE seem to be based on a worst case scenario, yet this morning there's been emeritus professors and other experts debunking these findings and providing alternative measures.
So which set of experts do we believe ?
The handling of this virus has been atrocious based on the government's current scientific information, so is it time for a change ? "
Yes change is needed... Not these so called scientists on payroll bandwagon |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago
Bristol |
"All these recommendations from SAGE seem to be based on a worst case scenario, yet this morning there's been emeritus professors and other experts debunking these findings and providing alternative measures.
So which set of experts do we believe ?
The handling of this virus has been atrocious based on the government's current scientific information, so is it time for a change ? "
I would posit that your assertion that the government’s atrocious handling is based on government’s current scientific information is way off.
There’s no question the handling has been atrocious - how much they have followed the scientific information available to them is highly questionable.
I suspect that if they had chosen to follow the advice based on information their scientists were providing more closely to determine their actions, the handling would be a lot less atrocious than it has so far been. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Scientists.. Hmm.. It used to be they lived in bunkers under the ground. Now some are being encouraged into the light and aren't sure how to handle it. What we need is proper leadership, a common vision and buy in from the majority. Not to belittle scientists, but they have not added so much value in the last months and we are tinkering around with things now... Groups of 6, groups of 8, limited exposure, wear a mask, don't wear a mask, close at 9, close at 10... and so on. When they have a breakthrough.... Wheel them out again... Until then, stop using them as an excuse for a complete and abject failure of leadership, we know what we have to deal with and we know how we best deal with it.... Limit exposure, limit contacts, better hygiene for hands and surfaces.... Stronger together. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago
Bristol |
Pretty much everything you listed is government policy made by politicians while ignoring scientific advice - or, more accurately, only taking advice from scientists who will match advice to the desired policy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All these recommendations from SAGE seem to be based on a worst case scenario, yet this morning there's been emeritus professors and other experts debunking these findings and providing alternative measures.
So which set of experts do we believe ?
The handling of this virus has been atrocious based on the government's current scientific information, so is it time for a change ?
I would posit that your assertion that the government’s atrocious handling is based on government’s current scientific information is way off.
There’s no question the handling has been atrocious - how much they have followed the scientific information available to them is highly questionable.
I suspect that if they had chosen to follow the advice based on information their scientists were providing more closely to determine their actions, the handling would be a lot less atrocious than it has so far been."
Possibly... We will never know. The thing is, whatever any govt puts to its population to follow.... Its only as effective as the choices individuals make. That's on us and not the govt. We could have had, yaweh, Abraham, mohammed, Buddha, indra, cronus and zeus in charge but the great British public demands for its rights to a pint at the dog and duck and a bareback fuck with a random stranger would supercede their collective wisdom. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We stay guided by the SAGE experts. Science is never about things being finished and having the anseers for everything, which is why we should be guided by the people with the appropriate expertise who will interpret the evidence for the decisions that need to be made.
The rest of us remain free to learn and make our own conclusions, just as experts outside of SAGE may do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" yet this morning there's been emeritus professors and other experts debunking these findings and providing alternative measures.
"
It's very easy to express an opinion when you won't be held liable when it fuxks up thousands of lives, isn't it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Scientists.. Hmm.. It used to be they lived in bunkers under the ground. Now some are being encouraged into the light and aren't sure how to handle it. What we need is proper leadership, a common vision and buy in from the majority. Not to belittle scientists, but they have not added so much value in the last months and we are tinkering around with things now... Groups of 6, groups of 8, limited exposure, wear a mask, don't wear a mask, close at 9, close at 10... and so on. When they have a breakthrough.... Wheel them out again... Until then, stop using them as an excuse for a complete and abject failure of leadership, we know what we have to deal with and we know how we best deal with it.... Limit exposure, limit contacts, better hygiene for hands and surfaces.... Stronger together. "
I can see the new mantra now:
Limit contacts to
Limit exposure and
Wash those fucking hands
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"All these recommendations from SAGE seem to be based on a worst case scenario, yet this morning there's been emeritus professors and other experts debunking these findings and providing alternative measures.
So which set of experts do we believe ?
The handling of this virus has been atrocious based on the government's current scientific information, so is it time for a change ?
Yes change is needed... Not these so called scientists on payroll bandwagon "
These so called scientists with their so called degrees, and their so called years of so called research, published in so called scientific journals, reviewed by so called peers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
