Again, @SMC_London tries to whitewash fearmongering, and also ignores the smearmongering from the fearmongers in place of robust, transparent scientific debate and democratic policymaking.
theguardian.com/world/2021/aug…
theguardian.com/world/2021/aug…
The alarmist models are okay, says @SMC_London, because they got people to behave, and therefore fewer people got the virus.
It's okay that science has no test in reality.
It's okay that there's no opportunity for democracy or criticism or debate.
It's okay that science has no test in reality.
It's okay that there's no opportunity for democracy or criticism or debate.
And it's okay that this technocratic, risk-obsessed form of politics is the dominant form of politics.
If that's 'science', then f*** 'science'.
If that's 'science', then f*** 'science'.
"... they are just doing their jobs..."
Seriously.
But what *are* their 'jobs'?
What if we disagree with their jobs?
What if we don't want to obey their 'jobs'?
What if we think their jobs do more harm than good?
Yes, I'm attacking them.
It's not my job.
Seriously.
But what *are* their 'jobs'?
What if we disagree with their jobs?
What if we don't want to obey their 'jobs'?
What if we think their jobs do more harm than good?
Yes, I'm attacking them.
It's not my job.
"attacks on Ferguson often betray a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific modelling and, indeed, the way science works"
Adherence to Ferguson... Perhaps even Ferguson's own work betrays a departure from science and the way science works.
Similarly:
Adherence to Ferguson... Perhaps even Ferguson's own work betrays a departure from science and the way science works.
Similarly:
All that modellers are doing, the author claims, is "looking at numbers and using them to work out possible scenarios".
Bullshit.
We have no basis for presuming the good faith of modellers, and it would be foolish -- and a departure from science -- to do so.
Bullshit.
We have no basis for presuming the good faith of modellers, and it would be foolish -- and a departure from science -- to do so.
EG:
"If you want to understand the relative impacts of a three-week lockdown now compared with a five-week lockdown in a month’s time, there is only one way of doing it."
There wasn't a three-week lockdown. There were three lockdowns, lasting over a year.
"If you want to understand the relative impacts of a three-week lockdown now compared with a five-week lockdown in a month’s time, there is only one way of doing it."
There wasn't a three-week lockdown. There were three lockdowns, lasting over a year.
The models would tell you nothing that you couldn't work out from the presuppositions.
It turns out that earlier, longer, harder, stricter lockdowns are always more effective than later, shorter, softer more relaxed lockdowns, according to models.
It turns out that earlier, longer, harder, stricter lockdowns are always more effective than later, shorter, softer more relaxed lockdowns, according to models.
That is to say that @SMC_London's argument is circular, just as the modelling exercises are circular.
They compare hypothesis against hypothesis. They have no test in reality. Failures do not seem to affect the political utility of the model nor the career of the modeller.
They compare hypothesis against hypothesis. They have no test in reality. Failures do not seem to affect the political utility of the model nor the career of the modeller.
Therefore, I am not presupposing the good faith of modellers. I have seen very many models in which the output closely mirrors the ideological ambitions of the modellers.
Moreover, institutional science manifestly is not interested in inconvenient criticism.
It has other plans.
Modelling has given it extraordinary power.
And that has interrupted the scientific *process*.
It has other plans.
Modelling has given it extraordinary power.
And that has interrupted the scientific *process*.
"The Covid pandemic has taught us not to underestimate the public’s ability to grasp this kind of complexity."
No, @SMC_London, fearmongering drove the public's response, as is demonstrated by polls in which respondents overestimated the death toll by orders of magnitude.
No, @SMC_London, fearmongering drove the public's response, as is demonstrated by polls in which respondents overestimated the death toll by orders of magnitude.
As well as driving such fear-mongering, institutional science and modellers did nothing to improve that misunderstanding, and instead used the models to traduce critics.
But the healthcare system was not overwhelmed.
Massive emergency hospitals were built and never used.
Meanwhile, elderly patients *with* covid were sent back to "care" homes, where they infected others, pushing the infection and death rates up.
Was that modelled?
Massive emergency hospitals were built and never used.
Meanwhile, elderly patients *with* covid were sent back to "care" homes, where they infected others, pushing the infection and death rates up.
Was that modelled?
There's so much wrong with the article.
It also forgets that the modeller couldn't produce the code, that when it was released, the code was of extremely poor quality, and that the modeller had years of failed modelling leading to poor policy decisions behind him.
It also forgets that the modeller couldn't produce the code, that when it was released, the code was of extremely poor quality, and that the modeller had years of failed modelling leading to poor policy decisions behind him.
It pretends that there was no scientific disagreement, that there was no element of politicking and empire-building on the modellers' behalf. It pretends that it's not possible for scientists to put their thumbs on the scale.
@SMC_London is *anti* science.
@SMC_London is *anti* science.
As many have argued from the outset, society could have been allowed to continue, while the vulnerable were protected.
There was sufficient data from March, to understand this fact, without the need for models.
But it was not the desired political message.
There was sufficient data from March, to understand this fact, without the need for models.
But it was not the desired political message.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
