Another wonk favourably retweeting mere smear because it's superficially clothed in recent academic thinking.
Fig leaves are flapping in the wind.
Fig leaves are flapping in the wind.
https://twitter.com/Jackstilgoe/status/1315268735972921344
I find this extraordinary. In the background to claims that the GBD's authors were wrong is the fact that the models used to drive policy were wrong, authored by a team of people who have a much longer history of being wrong.
This isn't about using science to find the best way forward under uncertainty. It's about defending institutional science and its intransigent panjandrums.
Nuanced theories about the relationship between research and policy don't cut it here.
Institutional science has shown itself to be bankrupt, and the cost of its excitement is incalculable. In the chaos, darker forces seek to take advantage.
Fuck your theories.
Institutional science has shown itself to be bankrupt, and the cost of its excitement is incalculable. In the chaos, darker forces seek to take advantage.
Fuck your theories.
Many many millions of people will be asking whether they have been served at all by science -- whether, in fact, they would have been better served by being told to estimate and manage their own risks.
What do the science studies lot do? Take sides in a court battle.
What do the science studies lot do? Take sides in a court battle.
If it is "stealth advocacy" to declare that "we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies", then long live stealth advocacy.
What the wonks are upset by is people speaking out of turn.
What the wonks are upset by is people speaking out of turn.
I have long had my doubts about the science studies lot.
If they can't see the Guardian smear piece for what it is, then it is all for nought.
If they can't see the Guardian smear piece for what it is, then it is all for nought.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
