And another. Quotes a line from the piece which is its fig leaf, as though it was not the piece's fig leaf.
https://twitter.com/SFuntowicz/status/1315258633362518018
The piece in summary is "There should be no expectation that scientists fall into line with a consensus.... Except that scientists who do not fall into line with a consensus are industry-funded propagandists who are only in it for the money".
Throughout the piece, claims like "it is misleading to suggest that giving up on suppression is anything but an outlier position" go unsubstantiated.
Even the WHO has now stated a position AGAINST lockdowns.
She's a bullshit artist.
Even the WHO has now stated a position AGAINST lockdowns.
She's a bullshit artist.
She claims, "Independent Sage, a group of scientists chaired by Sir David King, is engaging in values-based policy advocacy without being totally clear about it. But the Great Barrington model is by far the worst example."
How is GBD worse than IS? What is the metric?
How is GBD worse than IS? What is the metric?
This is the FULL extent of Sodha's reasoning:
"[Gupta's] claim that the declaration should sit outside politics while launching it at an event hosted by a libertarian thinktank funded by the Koch Foundation sits very oddly."
Got it? Koch... That's all it's about.
"[Gupta's] claim that the declaration should sit outside politics while launching it at an event hosted by a libertarian thinktank funded by the Koch Foundation sits very oddly."
Got it? Koch... That's all it's about.
The Kochs are the *wrong kind* of billionaire.
They are at the top of the Guardian/Observer demonology. In the same book, "libertarian" is a synonym of "unspeakable evil".
The demonology is how Guardian writers orient their understanding.
They are at the top of the Guardian/Observer demonology. In the same book, "libertarian" is a synonym of "unspeakable evil".
The demonology is how Guardian writers orient their understanding.
That is why the piece is *all* about orientation, and zero about substance.
Even the application of @RogerPielkeJr's theory goes incompletely applied, as Sodha cannot explain how the GBD fails to be "transparent about where expertise stops and advocacy begins".
Even the application of @RogerPielkeJr's theory goes incompletely applied, as Sodha cannot explain how the GBD fails to be "transparent about where expertise stops and advocacy begins".
Sodha can't say what the GBD is advocating for, other than what the GBD states.
It's implied -- innuendo -- that the "libertarian think tank" and the Kochs are the secret agenda being advocated.
How often & many think tanks have the Guardian joined forces with, uncritically?!!
It's implied -- innuendo -- that the "libertarian think tank" and the Kochs are the secret agenda being advocated.
How often & many think tanks have the Guardian joined forces with, uncritically?!!
And on how many billionaires' coins?
Many. Very many.
Sodha's piece is obvious political framing. And if science studies people cannot work it out, and respond critically, they have no insight to share.
Many. Very many.
Sodha's piece is obvious political framing. And if science studies people cannot work it out, and respond critically, they have no insight to share.
And the ideological motivation is easy to grasp...
The Guardian is terrified that authoritarian covid policies will make more people sympathetic to the broad libertarian fold.
They are right to be terrified.
Institutional science, too.
The Guardian is terrified that authoritarian covid policies will make more people sympathetic to the broad libertarian fold.
They are right to be terrified.
Institutional science, too.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
