The gaslighting cycle:
SAGE: Don't wait till hosp rise to act or it'll be too late
Govt/media:
-'too much uncertainty'/'mild'/'need more data'
-'SAGE modelling wrong'
-'closely following the data' (what data? PCRs/LFD capacity reached)
-'hosps mostly incidental'
-'too late now'!
SAGE: Don't wait till hosp rise to act or it'll be too late
Govt/media:
-'too much uncertainty'/'mild'/'need more data'
-'SAGE modelling wrong'
-'closely following the data' (what data? PCRs/LFD capacity reached)
-'hosps mostly incidental'
-'too late now'!
The misinformation/disinformation campaigns pushing this rhetoric have been incredibly strong with media narratives completely divorced from reality. It's been impossible to breakthrough the spin & frustrating to watch it all unfold, despite numerous warnings from SAGE & others.
I don't believe what's in the media actually represents the scientific consensus on this situation. I think the majority of experts were concerned and supported early action, but listening to media, you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise.
To me, it's a lot like the climate change debate. Imagine if the 3% of climate change denier 'scientists' were platformed as if they represented 50%, and the remaining 97% platformed equally, or potentially even less than that. It'd create a sense of confusion & lack of consensus
The absolutely amazing Jon Oliver said on @LastWeekTonight that it's media's job to portray the representation of scientific opinion. So if 97% of scientists agree on something, 97% of experts portrayed should represent those opinions. But that's not what happens.
Media mainstreams fringe opinions. I don't think this is random, because the scientists who tend to minimise (despite a long history of incorrect claims and predictions) and rationalise govt policy no matter how pseudoscientific are often given the biggest platforms.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
