Well in that case it’s not just the government that’s been lucky, we all have been. I still think that the government will need to go even further and yes I’d prefer them to do so without a potentially more contagious variant forcing their hand but assuming the government are exaggerating the potential transmissibility of the virus as cover for belatedly correcting their inadequate lockdown provisions is unfounded, imo. What Johnson said originated from the experts looking at the data and I can see no reason why he or they would so recklessly exaggerate the issue as has been suggested.
1 Like
To help the uptake of a new vaccine perhaps?
1 Like
They are lying shitbags who have refused to take responsibility for dealing with this outbreak time and time and time again. They have ignored the science that was not what they wanted to hear and dishonestly claimed to stand by the science when defending themselves against criticism. Recently they have been taking criticism for the fanciful way they have approached a Covid Christmas and finally realized they had to backtrack. And rather than accept blame for something they should have handled better, they are now pointing to an unforeseen freak of nature that has forced them to drop their otherwise stellar Christmas rules.
Anyone who thinks it is unreasonable to question whether those dots actually connect in that way is, well, I don’t know. Are some of the criticisms off base? Surely, but that is the issue with trust and credibility. You don’t get to be inept, callous, lying shitbags and then act hard done by when people assume the worst of you when more bad shit happens in your vicinity.
7 Likes
So in 12-18 hours we have gone from an indictment on the government that they are falsifying data, for their own benefit, to a general lump-gripe stab-in because they are, in general, lying cunts (we will find something on you). Still the finding that they falsified data has not been established. Just the witchunt soothsaying rhetoric continues as each poster amplifies a charged word from a prior post.
For completeness, I am taking no position here other than at this stage, the assertions at the UK Gov are actually unfounded and libelous. But wade in all you like, dip a biscuit in your tea.
Has anyone suggested that data is being falsified? Not sure that I have seen that here or elsewhere. The concern expressed has been that a very aggressive interpretation (conditional or otherwise) has been applied to the data, constructing a conclusion that the government has used to justify a significant policy shift that it probably had to make anyway.
6 Likes
Iceland’s data in this regard is of only very limited use, there are only ~5500 positives to sample from. The UK is adding that more data points than that every 2 days. In terms of tracing effects of mutations, the sample size is critical.
1 Like
The specific point was there was no scientific founding for the conclusions advanced 
Is a sample size critical, it seems to me it is significant, but not critical.
That is a very, very different charge than falsifying data though. Inevitably, there are policy/political interpretations advanced and scientific conclusions, with a varying degree of connection between the two. Ideally, a strong connection between the two, with the science driving the policy, but in the real world that doesn’t always happen. At the point that the first is dictating the second, or determining the foundations of the science of the house, there is a very serious problem. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that in the UK, whereas it clearly happened in the US - viz. subpoenas to HHS/CDC from the House Covid oversight commitee
1 Like
Probably doesn’t require enormous sample sizes, but if you are trying to infer properties like infectiousness, viral load, lethality, etc., from a population of now hundreds of known mutations, a database of Iceland’s 5500 or so samples is of limited value. To their fortune, it has huge gaps and limited variation. If they have just a single case of a given variant, not much can be inferred.
1 Like
Here’s the interview with Drosten that I referenced, I think it’s the one where others have posted quotes from as well. It’s in German unfortunately. Anyone who understands the language will find out that there is not a shred of criticism aimed at the British scientists. His main point was that there needs to be more data to make a sound judgement (and that the British colleagues are saying the same thing). The only thing that is vaguely political is that he thinks it’s unusual that high-ranking UK politicans would throw around such numbers at this point.
8 Likes
Yeah well you know full well it was just sloppiness, I understand the subtle difference thank you; but I think the argument did mutate into that phraseology at some point. Its not actually a very different charge at all, at another level it is a species of the same type of wrongdoing; intentionally giving misleading information.
I think the interesting thing is the way it was originally presented here. An article was posted from which a small part was quoted. The extract used was the only part of the article which criticised Johnson/the UK government.
It referred to the part you mention, quoting Drosten as saying, “there are too many unknowns to say something like that [Johnson saying that this mutation may be up to 70% more infectious]”.
That post, with the selective quote emphasising the only part of the article that was in any way critical of Johnson/the UK government, was then liked by 8 posters presumably as it satisfied the existing tenor of much of the conversation in here. It could not have been liked for accuracy given that the extract was unrepresentative of the article as a whole and the criticism of Johnson was itself lacking in foundation and reliant on misinterpreting/ignoring the way in which the potential infectiousness of the mutation was explicitly qualified.
The way these sorts of information and public comments are presented in here seem designed to fuel an existing anti-UK/anti-Johnson/ANTI-UK government narrative. There’s very little attempt at objectivity with a number of posters apparently determined to feed existing prejudices with misinformation and distorted presentation of public commentary.
For the avoidance of doubt I’m not talking about you here.
My forecast is if the findings of the report cannot be controverted, once subject to sufficient external scientific scrutiny then the methodology will be undermined.
To be honest would be nice that the person who calculated the 70℅ number had some confidence in it…
It is obvious he would never have intended it to be communicated by the PM
1 Like
My understanding is that number is the upper limit of a range; any report for Government carries an expectation of public amplification. I would concur, it looks at first glance, to be a report made in contemplation of having political capital, and the charge made could be true. There is just no basis in fact for that conclusion yet.
If the only mechanism for undermining the Gov position is just another report, that ultimately is simply another opinion. I expect we will be left with conjecture and positions split according to allegiance. It has not passed me by either that the leading dissenter is a German scientist who could be laid with the same charge, albeit, going to different ends.
My bare opinion is this will all be conflated to fck with Brexit. Which is very sad because we are dealing with a deadly virus, but how else are the Gov advised other than an external advisor.
What was the other recent report that Boris sought to influence?
1 Like
@Barnestormer, @anon27364116, @Kopstar, @ISMF
The amplification turned up to such volume that it became distorted last night when on German public broadcasting a respected German TV journalist Fritz Frey used 70 times rather than 70% more transmissible, without any self-correction.
4 Likes
Interesting. I’ll have to read the quote again with fresh eyes as I never felt that the quote I posted was a direct criticism of Johnson or the government.
Posts in the UK Politics thread such as the ones below may help here