Reply With QuoteThe "alternate SAGE" group somewhat inconveniently only features scientists linked to Labour. I'd have thought a more balanced group would have been sought to deflect accusations of political bias?Originally Posted by surge
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
An individual can have the virus, have no symptoms or ill effects. It can still be transmitted. Hence it isn't a danger to some individuals but can well be dangerous to some they encounter.
The "alternate SAGE" group somewhat inconveniently only features scientists linked to Labour. I'd have thought a more balanced group would have been sought to deflect accusations of political bias?
Who are also individuals. And the same "carrier" can do exactly the same thing at work or on the way there or their way home. And someone catching it at work will still endanger everyone he meets after work.
My point is that the average man in the street will see that its no difference to him going to work and putting himself at risk so will baulk at being continally told he cannot do the things he wants but can do the things he must.
The trace and track app will help people to know if they have been in contact and hopefully they will then isolate when told.
What is your opinion on the quote I highlighted? Do you understand why WHO are saying isolate for 14 days and UK says 7 days? The openness should allow statements to be reviewed and more baseless comments to be 'corrected'.
In all honesty I have always understood the isolation was for a recommended 14 days becuase it can take up to 10 days for symptoms to show.
Should, but won't. When one of the scientists in the alternate SAGE group is married to Corbyn's special advisor, daughter is Head of Complaints ( and being sued by Rachel Riley ) to name but one example, then for every "correct" questioning, I suspect every little thing will be found. WIll Pollock, who tweeted this, https://twitter.com/AllysonPollock/s...29088801525760 act impartiallY?
It's just staggering that whoever put that group together couldn't get a cross section of political views amongst the group. No Tories, no Lib Dems, no SNP, no Plaid.
Even if they do act independently and not as a partisan group, the accusation can always be levelled.
I don't want to say UK government says 7 days from showing symptoms because obviously if you're unwell on day 7 you don't act as if it's over on day 8, however there seems to be conflicting advice about how long you can be infectious for and I don't understand why. The unknown (some names released today) scientists say it's political decision, the politician's say "we follow the science" and there isn't enough openness about what that "science" is or where it stops.In all honesty I have always understood the isolation was for a recommended 14 days becuase it can take up to 10 days for symptoms to show.
All scientists will have political views as well as personal bias within scientific field. As far as I understand, they're meant to be aware of them, to remove it as much as possible when making conclusions and be open in information used so can be peer reviewed. The accusation that they're biased will be made most by those i) concerned they're not acting in proper way and ii) dislike conclusions being drawn. Guess my question remains though, is it right that we seemingly don't know why there is conflicting information between WHO and UK government?
well the WHO said at the weekend that the safe distance might be just a metre but UK Gov says its still 2. Which would you beleive in that scenario?
People believe what gthey want to beleive.
There's a difference between choosing which scenario suits one personally, and actually not swallowing everything the Authorities tell us. I can't drive further than a designated distance from my home, yet being in my car is as safe as if I'm tucked up in bed at home. My children have self-isolated for 6 weeks. So have my wife and I. There is no logical, medical or safety reason why I shouldn't visit them, hold them. I think a Govt. that builds a hospital for 4000 people and treats 29 might actually get a few other things wrong..
I am not arguing with you about your family but it is an example od people saying "Oh the rules shouldn't apply to me because....." I fully agree about driving your car, it is one of the problems with unlocking, everyone will seek to use a car rather than catch public transport.
With regard to the hospitals, would you prefer that huge hospital be built on underused or that 29 people die on a trolley for lack of equipment? The press and others would have a field day.
I guess the same point stands: I don't know what WHO are basing it off and unless they're open about information they're using my decision will be less informed than I would like.
No, of course not. I'm just saying the Govt. - and their advisors, have been 'winging it'. It's not political, I just think in this country we're not very good at actually getting things done. There are 3 national health bodies, a bloated and inefficient civil service, things that are much more streamlined in Germany for example.
did you see the report about Germany's reproting today?
Still got to be peer reviewed, don't forget, but if it's true the German numbers are ten times those reported, then there's obviously more context applied.
Whitty is winging it? He shoots direct I feel
Science is science, there is no link to labour or conservative
That's not how right wing politics works. Take the 'B' word. An overwhelming majority of economists have predicted it will affect us negatively, so accuse political economists of being lefties, bring in right wing economists (who are in the small minority) to provide balance. The balance isn't a natural one.
Say there were 1000 doctors concerned about the NHS. The Tory media would deflect it, find a handful of doctors who aren't concerned and use them as balance. Of course the balance isn't real, it's all smoke and mirrors. The same would probably be true of Labour. I'd rather listen to the experts free of political interference.
If you understand how it works you'd understand that this is stupid:
Well I don't actrually see much wrong with that. after lockdown Just because they are open it doesn't force people to go and they can spar wide if they wish. Saying they are open but don't go after the lockdown is at least giving people an informed cxhoice. Knowing the risk if they choose to go they can.
Pubs and restaurants are some of the places where it spreads easily and they aren't a "necessity"
Hence they won’t be opening for a long time yet
Yep, unless they have a big outside space it'll be a while until we can get a pint unfortunately
you are so quick to be holier than thou and all knowledgable but you carefylly avoid the point of what I was saying, as you normally do when you try to be clever with people.
I never said "I want the pubs open now". What I was actually saying was if they do keep the pubs closed for months and months and tell the ordinary working man and woman that they can go to work and put themselves at risk and pay their taxes but they cannot make the choicer, knowing the risks of actually enjoying the fruit of their labour, forbidden to go for a pint after work or on a sunny sunday lunchtime, then the general population will start to get very pissed off with the government that is telling them the thing they have to do is OK but the thing they want to do in not, and you will start to see more and more people ignoring government asdvice across the board. It also risks more and more pubs never openiong their doors again, and they are businesses that employ people just as primark, M&S and all the others are.
That is the point of what I was saying.
And if you beleive that the social distancing measure put in place in officees and factories will last longer than a short while as people get used to the old routine then you live in cloud cuckoo land. The risk of going ot the workplace and the risk of going to a pub are decisions the individual must make.
If the say people can work then bosses will tell them to work and if the feel it is not safe and stay home they will be in danger of losing their jobs because they are refusing to work when the govsaid its OK. So they will feel that if they must do that why cannot they have the choice to take the risk of going to a pub or restaurant? It's the way people think
Ah, ok then, so it's merely a statistical coincidence all in the alternative SAGE have links to the Labour party then...
Given the range of interpretations of the science, changing day by day, why do I get the impression said alternative group will never praise the government?
Why would they praise the government. They should be giving a transparent assessment of the latest available data
Praise the government? Is that all that matters to you??
Posting Permissions