What is the endgame for the scientists?

[ainsworth74]

I've seen a few times now posts like the below:

Whitty and his SAGE scaremongers have lied, exaggerated and falsified the statistics throughout the pandemic to spread fear and panic and maintain control of a cowed population.

(With apologies for picking on you @CaptainHaddock but yours was the easiest post I could lay hands on!)

And every time I do I find myself completely puzzled by what people think the endgame is for the scientists who are conspiring to control us via fear of the virus? What is the supposed goal that means that they're lying, exaggerating and making things up? Because to me it seems, frankly, to be proper tin foil hat conspiracy theory stuff akin to arguing the earth is flat and the moon landing was faked. Verging into QAnon territory even such as the recent one that JFK Jr. is alive and about to join Donald Trump on the ticket for the 2024 Presidential Election.

So, can anyone help me to understand?

 

[Paul Kelly]

I think something that is sometimes implied is that some people enjoy the feeling of having power over others, and perhaps that power gradually leads to corruption? Certainly the quoted post doesn't seem to indicate that there is any ultimate goal being worked towards.

 

[yorksrob]

It's in the nature of science that current scientific theory will be disproved in time.

For COVID modellers, that process may (hopefully) play out more quickly.

 

[birchesgreen]

I think a lot of the claims reflect more on the person making the claim to be honest, as with most (all?) conspiracy theories.

 

[MikeWM]

I think it fairly clear that a *minority* of scientists are hoping to change the way our society works, though more for political reasons than scientific, and have seen this as an opportunity to try to do so. Communist party member Susan Michie being the obvious example.

I've no idea what the motivation of many of the others are, though probably a lot of it is trying to keep on the right side of the people who fund them.

 

[Yew]

I think the 'endgame' is that they don't want to be blamed if there is a big wave, and as they are not on the hook for the collateral damage of restrictions, they recommend harsh actions.

Nothing conspiritorial, but simply that Boris isn't capable of weighing up the harms of restrictions they propose; nor of asking critical questions of modelling.

 

[MikeWM]

I think the 'endgame' is that they don't want to be blamed if there is a big wave, and as they are not on the hook for the collateral damage of restrictions, they recommend harsh actions.

There is definitely an element of that. If they overstate the risk, some of us will say bad things about them but mostly we'll go 'phew, well that wasn't so bad'. Whereas if they understate it then everyone will blame them when people die. So there is an inherent bias towards the doomster approach.

Nothing conspiritorial, but simply that Boris isn't capable of weighing up the harms of restrictions they propose; nor of asking critical questions of modelling.

Exactly. You don't give any one group the things they're asking for - part of being a politician (or any sort of leader) is supposed to be able to balance everything and do the best thing overall.

As to the point that people go along with the 'fashion' in order to keep funding streams - try getting a postdoc in astrophysics while being critical of superstring theory. This problem has infected pretty much all branches of science, not just public health.

 

[Busaholic]

I've seen a few times now posts like the below:


(With apologies for picking on you @CaptainHaddock but yours was the easiest post I could lay hands on!)

And every time I do I find myself completely puzzled by what people think the endgame is for the scientists who are conspiring to control us via fear of the virus? What is the supposed goal that means that they're lying, exaggerating and making things up? Because to me it seems, frankly, to be proper tin foil hat conspiracy theory stuff akin to arguing the earth is flat and the moon landing was faked. Verging into QAnon territory even such as the recent one that JFK Jr. is alive and about to join Donald Trump on the ticket for the 2024 Presidential Election.

So, can anyone help me to understand?

As I'm as far removed from the mindset as it's possible to be, I wouldn't attempt to try to understand the brain processes involved. What I have just noticed, though, is that looking at photos of David Icke, Andrew Wakefield and Robert Kilroy-Silk they appear to have much the same face. Have they ever been seen together? Kilroy-Silk is perhaps more orange than the others, rather like Trump. Actually, all four, especially Trump, have protruding curled lower lips, so maybe this is a sign of where their unique 'thinking' originates. JFK and the Donald, that'd be a dream ticket, eh?, particularly if Trump would conveniently die too.

 

[43066]

I think the 'endgame' is that they don't want to be blamed if there is a big wave, and as they are not on the hook for the collateral damage of restrictions, they recommend harsh actions.

Nothing conspiritorial, but simply that Boris isn't capable of weighing up the harms of restrictions they propose; nor of asking critical questions of modelling.

That’s probably true for the majority. Also the fact that they will (by design) focus only on their area of expertise. An epidemiologist isn’t qualified to take economic matters into account when recommending a lockdown, for example. That’s what we rely on our wonderful politicians to do.

I think it fairly clear that a *minority* of scientists are hoping to change the way our society works, though more for political reasons than scientific, and have seen this as an opportunity to try to do so. Communist party member Susan Michie being the obvious example.

In the case of Michie, that most certainly seems likely given her extreme political views (I notice you have already received some flack upthread for daring to mention her!). It’s strange how some people seem to think scientists are somehow above politics, or having agendas of their own.

There is clearly also a group who are driven by their egos and, having been plucked from obscurity, wish to maintain their new found public profiles for as long as possible. Neil Fergusson is an obvious example of this. As I commented on another thread the media obediently jump on his latest pronouncements, giving him headlines and air time, but ignoring the fact he has been discredited many times (not just in relation to Covid!).

 

[yorkie]

I am sure it differs for different people but if you look at the worst culprits of doom-mongers such as Pagel, Ding, Greenhalgh, Mtchie and co, it could be about control, trying to change our society in a way that they see as 'better', building a cult following, gaining attention, building their profile. Many of them are misguided, stubborn and very blinkered.

I think for someone like Eric Ding there is definitely an element of attention seeking going on and an attempt to build a small army of like-minded followers.

I am sure people like Trish Greenhalgh want to change our society in certain ways and change our behaviour, not just in the short term, but in the long term too.

Neil Ferguson is an odd one; he has been wrong so many times, but he doesn't come across as an attention seeker. He was the architect of the first lockdown but broke it in a very dishonourable and quite spectacular manner. His predictions for a range of different diseases have consistently turned out to be garbage, and so we should not be surprised he is wrong again with Sars-CoV-2. I put him down to being incompetent.

I don't agree with putting Whitty in the same bracket as any of the well known troublemakers mentioned above, though I am not happy with certain things he says, I think he is well meaning but has lost his way a little bit as time has gone on.

I was listening to this podcast and around the 12 minute mark I thought of this thread!

12:09 people totally overreacting to omicron

12:13 if you're vaccinated seems like not such

12:15 a big deal especially three doses yes i

12:17 i think it's overreaction but it's

12:19 driven by scientists right it's driven

12:27 thank god you you've you've come and

12:29 seen the light

12:31 yeah the scientists speak to the

12:32 journalists who just pass on their words

12:35 exactly now cnn talked to me at the

12:38 beginning of the outbreak and i didn't i

12:40 wasn't hysterical enough so they never

12:42 had me back

The scientists who are most listened to by the media are those who will be the most hysterical, jump to conclusions and say what the journalists want to hear.

And similarly the hysterical ones tend to get more followers on Twitter; they get a cult following of people who appear to be brainwashed.

The BBC today published misleading claims about vaccine efficacy because most scientists focus on antibodies; but if you know who to listen to, it is not too difficult to find out that the real experts in virology and immunology think that T cells are actually more important when it comes to preventing serious illness.

Media outlets like the BBC probably don't have anyone who is intelligent and knowledgeable and unbiased enough to understand the nuances and so what hope does the general public have?

We are being mislead by the vocal hysterical minority who falsely purport to represent "The Science" (anyone who refers to "the science" as if there is one universal view of all scientists is not worth listening to in my opinion)

 

[AlterEgo]

I've seen a few times now posts like the below:


(With apologies for picking on you @CaptainHaddock but yours was the easiest post I could lay hands on!)

And every time I do I find myself completely puzzled by what people think the endgame is for the scientists who are conspiring to control us via fear of the virus? What is the supposed goal that means that they're lying, exaggerating and making things up? Because to me it seems, frankly, to be proper tin foil hat conspiracy theory stuff akin to arguing the earth is flat and the moon landing was faked. Verging into QAnon territory even such as the recent one that JFK Jr. is alive and about to join Donald Trump on the ticket for the 2024 Presidential Election.

So, can anyone help me to understand?

There isn't an endgame or conspiracy.

The scientific elite have been wedged - partly their own fault - in a culture war they don't want to be on the wrong side of. Their big problem is that if there is a big 'Virus is Over' day at the 'end' of all this (restrictions all end, SAGE no longer an arm of the government) then it feels like a defeat for them. They all have to go home and lose social status and it'll be a generation or more for them to regain institutional trust.

This is entirely natural and part of human nature. It is difficult to get rid of things like military juntas for the same reason.

 

[adc82140]

Many of the scientists are probably on the aspergers spectrum. I don't mean that as an insult, as I know many of our members here are too (possibly including me). This means that these scientists may be very talented in their field, but less aware of the wider societal impacts there statements make. Some may underestimate the importance of socialisation etc as it really isn't on their radar. They don't see the bigger picture.

Unfortunately they have been thrust in to the limelight, and really don't know how to handle it. It's the first time anyone outside their area of academia has ever taken any notice of them.

 

[Freightmaster]

Many of the scientists are probably on the aspergers spectrum. I don't mean that as an insult, as I know many of our members here are too (possibly including me). This means that these scientists may be very talented in their field, but less aware of the wider societal impacts there statements make. Some may underestimate the importance of socialisation etc as it really isn't on their radar. They don't see the bigger picture.

(image of Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory)

 

[brad465]

Many of the scientists are probably on the aspergers spectrum. I don't mean that as an insult, as I know many of our members here are too (possibly including me). This means that these scientists may be very talented in their field, but less aware of the wider societal impacts there statements make. Some may underestimate the importance of socialisation etc as it really isn't on their radar. They don't see the bigger picture.

Unfortunately they have been thrust in to the limelight, and really don't know how to handle it. It's the first time anyone outside their area of academia has ever taken any notice of them.

Yes experiencing empathy is a genuine weakness for many on the spectrum, but is certainly not something we should be faulting them or any other autistic/Asperger's sufferer for. I think another factor at play is an extremely weak government/leader who is/are incapable of critical thinking to apply several different points of view and reach a compromise response; it's far easier for politicians to just listen to the views of one group who can get the best media platform and take almost everything they say as Gospel.

There isn't an endgame or conspiracy.

The scientific elite have been wedged - partly their own fault - in a culture war they don't want to be on the wrong side of. Their big problem is that if there is a big 'Virus is Over' day at the 'end' of all this (restrictions all end, SAGE no longer an arm of the government) then it feels like a defeat for them. They all have to go home and lose social status and it'll be a generation or more for them to regain institutional trust.

This is entirely natural and part of human nature. It is difficult to get rid of things like military juntas for the same reason.

Apologies if you do mean this in your post and I haven't grasped it, but not only do I think what you say here is largely correct, but at some point, as more of the fallout from lockdowns and other restrictions come to light, more people are going to realise/believe that our approach was all wrong. Considering how much money was borrowed to prop up closed business and furloughed workers, and how much disruption to society, education and normal human behaviour resulted, a huge reckoning awaits and anyone believing in the strategy we followed will want to keep trying to claim it was correct to buy as much time as possible; no-one, whether in SAGE and/or in politics, will ever want to be on the receiving end of an admission of failure in how we reacted to covid. It's hard enough for them being on the receiving end of any political failure.

 

[JB_B]

I've seen a few times now posts like the below:


(With apologies for picking on you @CaptainHaddock but yours was the easiest post I could lay hands on!)

And every time I do I find myself completely puzzled by what people think the endgame is for the scientists who are conspiring to control us via fear of the virus? What is the supposed goal that means that they're lying, exaggerating and making things up? Because to me it seems, frankly, to be proper tin foil hat conspiracy theory stuff akin to arguing the earth is flat and the moon landing was faked. Verging into QAnon territory even such as the recent one that JFK Jr. is alive and about to join Donald Trump on the ticket for the 2024 Presidential Election.

So, can anyone help me to understand?

Sorry, can't help - this puzzles me too.

QAnoners don't need any coherent story about motivation - they're happy with the simple idea that "the elite are evil and out to get us (or our children)" - no further (plausible) explanation is required. Sadly, similarly paranoid views about mainstream approaches to dealing with the Covid pandemic seem to be extremely prevalent on these forums - I'm not sure why that it is.

 

[yorkie]

Sorry, can't help - this puzzles me too.

QAnoners don't need any coherent story about motivation - they're happy with the simple idea that "the elite are evil and out to get us (or our children)" - no further (plausible) explanation is required. Sadly, similarly paranoid views about mainstream approaches to dealing with the Covid pandemic seem to be extremely prevalent on these forums - I'm not sure why that it is.

What are your views on doom-mongers such as Eric Ding?

What is defined as a "mainstream approach" and was Sweden's approach considered to be mainstream?

I don't think we have any QAnoners on this forum, do we?

In order to understand your post, there are a lot of aspects to it that would need to be clarified; are we on the same side or at opposite ends of the spectrum? If you're arguing against anti-vaxxers (who are not very prevalent on this forum) and conspiracy theorists (again I don't think we have many here) then we're in agreement.

I think a thread like this has a lot of scope for confusion and talking at cross purposes. Scientists disagree with each other (and you can see that a lot if you look at certain twitter conversations and listen to certain podcasts) and various hot topics such as the emergence of the latest variant are really dividing opinion among scientists. Nevertheless, some people who are keen on imposing restrictions, want to gloss over these disagreements and portray a view that there is 'one science' and people who do not go along with alarmists who are quoted in the media are somehow anti-science. The reality could not be further from the truth.

 

[adc82140]

It really does bug me that to some people anyone who questions any of the statements of the scientists is either an anti vaxxer or a conspiracy theorist.

Meanwhile on the BBC website, some more balanced analysis from Nick Triggle. He and Ed Conway from Sky stand out as journalists not being dragged to the lowest common denominator.

Covid-19: More than 10,000 new Omicron cases found in UK

A major incident has been declared in London as another 90,418 daily UK cases are reported.

www.bbc.co.uk

When it comes to Covid hospital admissions it's going to become increasingly important to look behind the headline figures to truly understand the impact of Omicron.
With infection levels rising, it's possible a greater share will be incidental admissions - a patient with a broken leg who happens to test positive for Covid on arrival, for example.
In London more than one in five patients in hospital fall into this category - and it's a proportion that may be just showing the early signs of increasing.
Admissions for Covid are also going up, just not as fast it seems as admissions with Covid.
So direct Covid pressures are still on the rise but just maybe not as fast as headline figures suggest.
Another figure to watch is length of stay for Covid patients.
It has been falling throughout the pandemic.
If it falls again during this Omicron wave that too could relieve the overall pressure.

 

[farleigh]

Sorry, can't help - this puzzles me too.

QAnoners don't need any coherent story about motivation - they're happy with the simple idea that "the elite are evil and out to get us (or our children)" - no further (plausible) explanation is required. Sadly, similarly paranoid views about mainstream approaches to dealing with the Covid pandemic seem to be extremely prevalent on these forums - I'm not sure why that it is.

The mainstream approach being forbidding travel, seeing friends, attending funerals, children attending school etc?

If so then I fully admit to paranoid views

 

[TPO]

Many of the scientists are probably on the aspergers spectrum. I don't mean that as an insult, as I know many of our members here are too (possibly including me). This means that these scientists may be very talented in their field, but less aware of the wider societal impacts there statements make. Some may underestimate the importance of socialisation etc as it really isn't on their radar. They don't see the bigger picture.

Unfortunately they have been thrust in to the limelight, and really don't know how to handle it. It's the first time anyone outside their area of academia has ever taken any notice of them.

Disagree.

In fact your suggestion is rather insulting, and I might also suggest somewhat indicates a lack of understanding about autistic spectrum conditions including Aspergers.

Rather, many if not most of the scientists display very normal neurotypical behaviours in following the group think and social norms of their group, and fulfilling needs for status whilst ignoring needs of other social groups (may be perceived as less "worthy" than one's own group).

It's more likely the autistic people seeing the inconsistency and wrongness of what scientists are doing!

Empathy: I suggest you read Baron-Cohens work about affective empathy vs cognitive empathy.

Persons on the autistic spectrum can feel emotionally but don't know how to respond helpfully to the emotions of a neurotypical, whereas a sociopath can respond to the emotions of the neurotypical very effectively but feels nothing- so manipulates for their own purpose.

Scientists are far more socially savvy than you imply. The machinations and internal politics in University science research depts and the wider research community make Sir Humphrey and his ilk look like rank amateurs. In most scientific disciplines it is very difficult for a talented Aspie to survive as the politically savvy but less capable folks consistently outmanoevre them.

Need to take off Rose tinted specs about scientists and the research system. It is very hard nosed and commercial/political.

TPO

P.S. I have a PhD in a physical science and am an Aspie, I left scientific research and (by a circuitous route) finally ended up working on the railway. Far more Aspies in certain parts of the railway (and in technical/standards compliance disciplines) than in scientific research groups in my experience......

 

[yorkie]

One thing is for sure: there are a wide range of scientific views and some of the scientists who have views on restrictions have very different, polar opposite, views compared to others.

The following festive poem just cropped up and seems very apt for this thread as it refers to various scientists/experts who are active on Twitter, and refers to their differing opinions/approaches:

https://twitter.com/julianlewis2012/status/1472330938755338246

‘Tis one week before Christmas, and across Covid Twitter
The discourse is growing increasingly bitter
The Omicron variant’s R0 is wild
But Angelique Coetzee insists it’s more mild

Is this all for the worst? Is this all for the best?
For the experts on Twitter, it’s a true Rorschach Test
But to seek out their views on all matters coronae
You first should review the dramatis personae

If you want some insight into all Covid news
The views you should choose should be Francois Balloux’s
You just want to cheer up? Well, in that case what we say
Is “check out the vaccine scientist known as Chise”

Leonardi’s worth following, if you’ll entertain
The thought of Lewy bodies wrecking your brain
And if you, bizarrely, want to be appalled
Check out the timelines of Bar-Yam and Dewald

EFD and his ALL CAPS, his sirens so red
If he’d been correct, we’d already be dead
You can more fully trust a Trevor Bedford thread
(I confess most of his stuff sails over my head)

Wes Pegden is pointing out things that won’t work-ish
And Muge makes sense in both English and Turkish
Epi Ellie says no one should go on vacation
Ashish Jha?
He’s great
But
Eschews punctuation

If you get alarmed when the cases rise steeply
You’d probably feel quite Pagelly or Deept-ly
But if you need mental health boosters, don’t hide
The fact you follow Gandhi, or Lucy McBride...

"Pagelly or Deept-ly" is a reference to Christina Pagel and Deepti Gurdasani; two names that I will forever associate with doom-mongering. Interesting to see chief doom monger Eric Ding didn't get a mention (unless I missed it) but maybe that's for the best

Good to see Chise get an honourable mention.

 

[NorthOxonian]

"Pagelly or Deept-ly" is a reference to Christina Pagel and Deepti Gurdasani; two names that I will forever associate with doom-mongering. Interesting to see chief doom monger Eric Ding didn't get a mention (unless I missed it) but maybe that's for the best

Eric Ding is the EFD mentioned in the fifth stanza. I think they got him pretty spot on!

 

[yorkie]

Eric Ding is the EFD mentioned in the fifth stanza. I think they got him pretty spot on!

Ah of course. Yes, absolutely

 

[adc82140]

Eric Ding is the EFD mentioned in the fifth stanza. I think they got him pretty spot on!

What are Ding's qualifications? Is he the one who was a middle grade cardiologist, or am I confusing him with someone else?

 

[cuccir]

To be honest I blame failures in science reporting more than the scientists.

Take the Guardian's recent headlines about scientists warning of 2million infections a day.... Look at the report and 2m is there, as the upper bound of possible outcomes in a 'worst case scenario' model. Technically the scientists producing the report have said that 2m a day is possible, but they do not argue it is likely. Yet the extreme figure is the one that grabs attention and goes into headlines, and people then blame "scaremongering" scientists for claims they haven't really made.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Media give the wrong ones attention, which gives us a skewed view of what the scientists, i believe is one issue as well as some being attention seeking and just giving the media what they want.

I wouldn't include witty with the rest, I find him quite measured and is clearly just someone who cares about his job and the NHS, and obviously his job is to save lives not to manage the UK economy so his view points are hardly surprising.

It is a shame really, as the fee are giving the profession of scientists a bad name. Even though it is completely unjustified, sometimes feel like we are heading towards Michael Gove's view of not wanting to hear from experts!

 

[Mojo]

A very interesting Twitter conversation took place yesterday between Fraser Nelson from The Spectator and Graham Medley who is the chairman of Sage’s modelling group. You can read his article here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article...hairman-of-the-sage-covid-modelling-committee

In effect, he admits that they are asked to model certain scenarios, and the report all over the news yesterday is highly unlikely to come to fruition.

From what Prof Medley says, it’s unclear that the most-likely scenario is even being presented to ministers this time around. So how are they supposed to make good decisions? I highly doubt that Sajid Javid is only asking to churn out models that make the case for lockdown. That instruction, if it is being issued, will have come from somewhere else.

Prof. Robert Dingwall, until recently a JCVI expert, has said that Medley’s candour reveals “a fundamental problem of scientific ethics in Sage” - ie, a hardwired negativity bias. “The unquestioning response to the brief is very like that of SPI-B's behavioural scientists,” he says and suggests that the Covid inquiry looks into all this.

At a time when we have just been given a new set of ‘scenarios’ for a new year lockdown it might be good if someone – if not Prof Medley – would clear up what assumptions lie behind the new 6,000-a-day-dead scenario, and if emerging information from South Africa about Omicron and its virulence have been taken into account. And how probable it is that a double-jabbed and increasingly boosted nation (with 95 per cent antibody coverage) could see this worst-case scenario come to pass.

 

[yorksrob]

Regarding the Medley affair, I wonder if it's a simple case of overcompensating for being percieved to have been too optimistic first time around.

 

[takno]

Regarding the Medley affair, I wonder if it's a simple case of overcompensating for being percieved to have been too optimistic first time around.

I think if you take it along with some of the careful statements from Ferguson's team about having modelled "a highly vaccinated western country" rather than specifically the UK, it represents mathematical modellers specifically getting fed up with being made to look stupid. They are being asked to model worst case scenarios based on assumptions they are provided about the effectiveness of things like masks in order to inform NPIs and civil contingencies. It's not really their fault if they are provided with garbage science on direct effectiveness, and it's certainly not their fault when Whitty and Vallance misuse those models to justify the NPIs and trigger the civil contingencies in the first place.

The work mathematical modellers are doing, trying to refine our understanding of how infections spread through a complex society with many and varied networks of interactions, is good work. It helps inform and refine our emergency responses to epidemics, focusing on things that work. It doesn't however invent those responses or do the legwork to measure their direct effectiveness. And it doesn't justify those responses - that's a cost benefit activity.

The fact that some of them like the guy from Warwick and Ferguson get carried away sometimes is pity, but really wouldn't be a problem if the press didn't persist in repeating their every word as some kind of particularly salacious gospel.

If Sage was properly staffed, the modellers would all still be there, but most of the behavioural psychologists would be replaced by economists. Unfortunately, as with most of the ills of the current age, over-promoted PR executive David Cameron loved short-term-easy solutions, and was ridiculously enamoured with the growing menace of "nudge". By presenting the essentially conservative nature of government and the civil service as a brake on our country, he was able to deliver a surprising amount of catastrophic reform in a short time Apparently that included stuffing the scientific committee with a bunch of people who manifestly should not be there, at the expense of people who really should

 

[DerekC]

If Sage was properly staffed, the modellers would all still be there, but most of the behavioural psychologists would be replaced by economists. Unfortunately, as with most of the ills of the current age, over-promoted PR executive David Cameron loved short-term-easy solutions, and was ridiculously enamoured with the growing menace of "nudge". By presenting the essentially conservative nature of government and the civil service as a brake on our country, he was able to deliver a surprising amount of catastrophic reform in a short time Apparently that included stuffing the scientific committee with a bunch of people who manifestly should not be there, at the expense of people who really should

I agree David Cameron was an incompetent PM, but I don't think you can blame him for the current composition of SAGE. As I understand it, it is under the control of the Chief Scientific Advisor (Patrick Vallance) and the composition depends on the subject SAGE has been called together to advise on. For instance with the Toddbrook Reservoir problem in 2019 the experts were in dams and earth structures. This far into the pandemic the composition should have ben changed and refined to include the right balance of virologists, epidemiologists/modellers and behavioural scientists, and that's up to Patrick Vallance.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

I'm wondering if some of them want to do away with anything seen as "frivolous" and suck all the enjoyment out of life. No watching football, no model railway shows, no holidays...