[petejh]

I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to have a strong opinion either way.

I do think this sentiment is worth considering:

52 participants! No wonder it takes a long time to reach decisions...

In a time-critical event time taken to take action is.. critical.

And I also think transparency is often a good thing.

I'm interested to know whether the level of real-time transparency you want is precedented elsewhere in policy-making in the UK. Because if it is then that suggests it shouldn't be too much trouble to do so with all the policy-making around Covid19.
But if it isn't precedented then that would suggest to me that the middle of the world's largest public health disaster may not be the best time to be undertaking experiments in real-time transparency behind policy-making.
I'm interested to hear opinions from people more knowledgeable than me on how realistic and/or desirable it would be.

[tomtom]

Partly answering Pete (I think) the problem with this secret / no need to bother your pretty little heads with al the details approach is that it treats the public like idiots.

People are in general sensible enough to get behind a decision if they can see the logic - and understand why decisions have been made. AFAIK this is the process in Germany - where Merkel made it clear that people needed to be treated with respect and make the decision making process transparent.

I thought this at first after the first few Cv pressers with the experts flanking the pm making sensible points. But by the day it seems that quite a bit is being hidden from us.

Same with the relaxing of the rules. Why. For fucks sake has the debate about this had to be led by the Welsh, Scottish Governments - and the Tony Blair institute?? Why are we being patronised about a plan being released on Sunday - with teasers (deliberately) leaked to the press this week to gauge opinion? This is treating us like kids instead of having a sensible discussion about this.  Grr.

[ali k]

I do think this sentiment is worth considering:

52 participants! No wonder it takes a long time to reach decisions...

It’s a rolling participation. 52 people don’t sit in every meeting, only the one relevant to their area of expertise. So not an argument to avoid transparency.

In a time-critical event time taken to take action is.. critical.

If only the government had listened to you back in February.

[tomtom]

Regarding time etc... didn’t SAGE meet twice a week from new year up to the beginning of March... it’s not like there’s one big meeting where it’s all decided - viewpoints evolve.

[petejh]

Well the cynical man might be forgiven for thinking Sturgeon (and Blair, for other reasons) is using CV19 control measures as a political show to demonstrate Scotland being independent and making its own way. Of course I wouldn't dream of making such claims.

What do you think has changed since the first daily briefings? Might you have just got used to the experts flanking the politicians and begun finding it less illuminating than that first flush of expert love?

[tomtom]

Well the cynical man might be forgiven for thinking Sturgeon (and Blair) is using CV19 control measures as a political show to demonstrate Scotland being independent and making its own way. Of course I wouldn't dream of making such claims.

What do you think has changed since the first daily briefings? Might you have just got used to the experts flanking the politicians and begun finding it less illuminating than that first flush of expert love?

Pete - that answer is ignoring my points and questioning my own views about the PM’s pressers - which tbh are not relevant (my views).

The point transparency and openness is important - and rather than prod me - do you disagree with me about this?

[petejh]

I don't know exactly what point you're making other than a general one that you feel th government hasn't been transparent (about the science?). Personally I feel like I know more than enough (at a layman level) about the science but I couldn't tell you whether that's because the government is transparent 'enough' or whether it's because I like finding out stuff for myself. Probably the latter.

See my reply to Ali:

I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to have a strong opinion either way.

I do think this sentiment is worth considering:

52 participants! No wonder it takes a long time to reach decisions...

In a time-critical event time taken to take action is.. critical.

And I also think transparency is often a good thing.

I'm interested to know whether the level of real-time transparency you want is precedented elsewhere in policy-making in the UK. Because if it is then that suggests it shouldn't be too much trouble to do so with all the policy-making around Covid19.
But if it isn't precedented then that would suggest to me that the middle of the world's largest public health disaster may not be the best time to be undertaking experiments in real-time transparency behind policy-making.
I'm interested to hear opinions from people more knowledgeable than me on how realistic and/or desirable it would be.

[tomtom]

Not transparent about the science or the decision making process - whilst pretending to be driven by the science - when evidence points that they have not been.

None of which would be a problem if they were transparent.

As per my example about the exit strategy..

[petejh]

I haven't thought this but maybe I'm wrong. What evidence shows they haven't been transparent about either the science or the decision-making process?

My view on exit strategy is why talk about it to joe bloggs when the number one most important point was to stay at home as far as possible? Decision-makers in business etc. don't have their heads in the sand/up their arse they have a different view from what's said to joe bloggs in daily briefings. Our group were talking last week about returning to business as it's obvious which way the wind is blowing - you don't need a weatherman to tell you etc...
Now that we're obviously moving into easing, it's the right time to talk about it to joe bloggs.

[Oldmanmatt]

I don't know exactly what point you're making other than a general one that you feel th government hasn't been transparent (about the science?). Personally I feel like I know more than enough (at a layman level) about the science but I couldn't tell you whether that's because the government is transparent 'enough' or whether it's because I like finding out stuff for myself. Probably the latter.

See my reply to Ali:

I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to have a strong opinion either way.

I do think this sentiment is worth considering:

52 participants! No wonder it takes a long time to reach decisions...

In a time-critical event time taken to take action is.. critical.

And I also think transparency is often a good thing.

I'm interested to know whether the level of real-time transparency you want is precedented elsewhere in policy-making in the UK. Because if it is then that suggests it shouldn't be too much trouble to do so with all the policy-making around Covid19.
But if it isn't precedented then that would suggest to me that the middle of the world's largest public health disaster may not be the best time to be undertaking experiments in real-time transparency behind policy-making.
I'm interested to hear opinions from people more knowledgeable than me on how realistic and/or desirable it would be.

Bad mood, mate?

I read:

“They” (some of the above posters) would like to see more transparency, than there has been (one wanted total, live streamed transparency). Most, just said “more” and there was mention of the (actually pretty silly) recent trend of “teasers” and leaks to gauge opinion prior to announcing policy (your cynical man, might add “and the eventual “U” turn on that policy).

That seems to answer your original question, unless you’re actually expecting a detailed, 30 page, analysis from each poster delineating the pros and cons of every aspect and effect of full transparency on each individual subject and topic.

Also, no clue why anyone needs to be “more knowledgeable” on any topic to request more detail to government policy making and the advice it’s based on?

I tend to think TT is more than a little off with his assessment of Joe public as “mostly sensible”, because I think they’re “mostly large rubber phalluses” most of the time and I fully agree, they shouldn’t be overly involved in (probably) most discussion of technical advice committees.
Jesus! If you think Cummings listening in might influence a debate, what the crap do you imagine a live audience of contrary twunts would do?

Because you know “most” or even “normal” people won’t bother tuning in, most of the time, but your average David Icke worshiping mouth breather, will be following religiously; along with vocal misrepresentation of every other sentence uttered.
Then, when the shit hits the fan (such as these Halcyon days) all the middle class know all’s will flock to the stream.
Just the sort of pressure you want somebody will a left field idea to float amongst the committee, to be under...


That’s a bit of a jest, not a slagging, Pete. I know you only wanted 20 pages.

[ali k]

What evidence shows they haven't been transparent about either the science or the decision-making process?

The lack of any evidence shows they haven’t been transparent. Beyond the 52 members of SAGE and a few government ministers no one knows what “science” the decisions have been based on. And also what “science” has been ignored or filtered out between the SAGE meeting and the subsequent government decision.

[petejh]

Bad mood, mate?

I read:

“They” (some of the above posters) would like to see more transparency, than there has been (one wanted total, live streamed transparency). Most, just said “more” and there was mention of the (actually pretty silly) recent trend of “teasers” and leaks to gauge opinion prior to announcing policy (your cynical man, might add “and the eventual “U” turn on that policy).

That seems to answer your original question, unless you’re actually expecting a detailed, 30 page, analysis from each poster delineating the pros and cons of every aspect and effect of full transparency on each individual subject and topic.

Also, no clue why anyone needs to be “more knowledgeable” on any topic to request more detail to government policy making and the advice it’s based on?

I tend to think TT is more than a little off with his assessment of Joe public as “mostly sensible”, because I think they’re “mostly large rubber phalluses” most of the time and I fully agree, they shouldn’t be overly involved in (probably) most discussion of technical advice committees.
Jesus! If you think Cummings listening in might influence a debate, what the crap do you imagine a live audience of contrary twunts would do?

Because you know “most” or even “normal” people won’t bother tuning in, most of the time, but your average David Icke worshiping mouth breather, will be following religiously; along with vocal misrepresentation of every other sentence uttered.
Then, when the shit hits the fan (such as these Halcyon days) all the middle class know all’s will flock to the stream.
Just the sort of pressure you want somebody will a left field idea to float amongst the committee, to be under...


That’s a bit of a jest, not a slagging, Pete. I know you only wanted 20 pages.

Err, no?
Just genuinely interested in what people think and why. Do you have to be in a bad mood to ask questions like that?

And yes to every twunt and his half-witted dog second-guessing a scientist offering an opinion.

[petejh]

What evidence shows they haven't been transparent about either the science or the decision-making process?

The lack of any evidence shows they haven’t been transparent. Beyond the 52 members of SAGE and a few government ministers no one knows what “science” the decisions have been based on. And also what “science” has been ignored or filtered out between the SAGE meeting and the subsequent government decision.

I'm not saying all the evidence is out there - because I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether it is or not.
But you mean beyond the evidence of many SAGE members talking directly to the public about the science on their twitter, blogs, articles, select committee hearings, and many of the science being publicly available to read in published studies? So apart from that evidence?

[JamieG]

Well the cynical man might be forgiven for thinking Sturgeon (and Blair, for other reasons) is using CV19 control measures as a political show to demonstrate Scotland being independent and making its own way. Of course I wouldn't dream of making such claims.

Imagine using sensible, open and transparent leadership to come across as a competent politician. The mind boggles. Almost as if the public appreciates not being treated like children.

[ali k]

you mean beyond the evidence of many SAGE members talking directly to the public about the science on their twitter, blogs, articles, select committee hearings, and many of the science being publicly available to read in published studies? So apart from that evidence?

Yeh you’re probably right. What a waste of time those SAGE meetings were! Boris should have just read their blogs and twitter feeds.

[chris j]

Not transparent about the science or the decision making process - whilst pretending to be driven by the science - when evidence points that they have not been.

None of which would be a problem if they were transparent.

As per my example about the exit strategy..

Since there's now two panels of scientists, evidence might suggest there's more than one 'science' to be driven by!

[chris j]

 This is treating us like kids instead of having a sensible discussion about this.  Grr.

Didn't the British people show they deserved to be treated like children back at the start of it all when the govt was talking social distancing and being sensible and we all collectively forced their hand into bringing in the lockdown by acting like twunts and f*cking off to Snowdonia on the first sunny weekend?

[Will Hunt]

 This is treating us like kids instead of having a sensible discussion about this.  Grr.

Didn't the British people show they deserved to be treated like children back at the start of it all when the govt was talking social distancing and being sensible and we all collectively forced their hand into bringing in the lockdown by acting like twunts and f*cking off to Snowdonia on the first sunny weekend?

I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.

[ali k]

I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.

Yeh agreed. The final Friday blow out all across the country in the pubs, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, family gatherings etc was probably where a bit more sweat and saliva was swapped than up on the top of Snowdon. And that natural human behaviour should have been entirely predictable (by SAGE) when lockdown had been warned was coming but not yet enforced.

[Bonjoy]

I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.

Yeh agreed. The final Friday blow out all across the country in the pubs, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, family gatherings etc was probably where a bit more sweat and saliva was swapped than up on the top of Snowdon. And that natural human behaviour should have been entirely predictable (by SAGE) when lockdown had been warned was coming but not yet enforced.

Yes,this.
Everyone is told not to go to pubs/shops/cinemas/gyms etc. The sun comes out at the weekend for the first time in months - what the actual fuck else did anyone think the contents of Nandos/Whetherspoons/Meadowhall (plus all the usual people who go outside) where going to do with their time?

[petejh]

Yeah, almost like what all those nob-heads needed was a bit less transparency from the government and just to be hit with the lock-down unexpected   


Anyway don't you realise the type of people they're trying to deal with..

[Stu Littlefair]

I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.

Yeh agreed. The final Friday blow out all across the country in the pubs, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, family gatherings etc was probably where a bit more sweat and saliva was swapped than up on the top of Snowdon. And that natural human behaviour should have been entirely predictable (by SAGE) when lockdown had been warned was coming but not yet enforced.

Yes,this.
Everyone is told not to go to pubs/shops/cinemas/gyms etc. The sun comes out at the weekend for the first time in months - what the actual fuck else did anyone think the contents of Nandos/Whetherspoons/Meadowhall (plus all the usual people who go outside) where going to do with their time?

Stay at home like they were asked?

You do realise that you’re all just effectively agreeing with ChrisJ, but just giving a different example of the issues with trusting the British public’s judgement?

[chris j]

 This is treating us like kids instead of having a sensible discussion about this.  Grr.

Didn't the British people show they deserved to be treated like children back at the start of it all when the govt was talking social distancing and being sensible and we all collectively forced their hand into bringing in the lockdown by acting like twunts and f*cking off to Snowdonia on the first sunny weekend?

I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.

Jeez, it was one representative example, I don't have vast amounts of time to write an essay detailing every single way people weren't following the advice not to congregate.

[ali k]

Everyone is told not to go to pubs/shops/cinemas/gyms etc. The sun comes out at the weekend for the first time in months - what the actual fuck else did anyone think the contents of Nandos/Whetherspoons/Meadowhall (plus all the usual people who go outside) where going to do with their time?

Stay at home like they were asked?
You do realise that you’re all just effectively agreeing with ChrisJ, but just giving a different example of the issues with trusting the British public’s judgement?

But isn't this perfectly predictable human behaviour and therefore something to be factored into the modelling and advice given by SAGE? Same reason we don't just ask people kindly to pay their tax?

Or perhaps it was, and was overruled by Johnson's 'libertarian nature' thinking it'd be best to let the public have one final blow out over the weekend? Then the public could be blamed for having 'forced the government's hand', rather than the govt having to be decisive? Hard to imagine "the science" prescribing that lockdown should begin on a Monday. But it'd be interesting to see those minutes.

[Bonjoy]

I do find this sort of argument really annoying. How many cars lined up in the Pass. A few hundred. Visually shocking, but that's a few hundred non compliances out of a population of 10s of millions.

Yeh agreed. The final Friday blow out all across the country in the pubs, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, family gatherings etc was probably where a bit more sweat and saliva was swapped than up on the top of Snowdon. And that natural human behaviour should have been entirely predictable (by SAGE) when lockdown had been warned was coming but not yet enforced.

Yes,this.
Everyone is told not to go to pubs/shops/cinemas/gyms etc. The sun comes out at the weekend for the first time in months - what the actual fuck else did anyone think the contents of Nandos/Whetherspoons/Meadowhall (plus all the usual people who go outside) where going to do with their time?

Stay at home like they were asked?

You do realise that you’re all just effectively agreeing with ChrisJ, but just giving a different example of the issues with trusting the British public’s judgement?

The public were asked, not told. Given the circumstances I described, yes I think it was inevitable that a fair percentage would choose to ignore or interpret their own way. Given the lack of other options and the limited number of parking spaces at well known beauty spots, an excess volume of visitors was the result, even though most of the public did stay at home. Does this mean I think the public can't be trusted? Some can, some can't. On aggregate a percentage are untrustworthy. Is that a controversial conclusion to draw?