Reply to: Who are SAGE?

[SueEllen]

Scientists are probably more corrupt than politicians. If you want a study that says anything you need to support your cause, you can just find a team of scientist and send them grants through some bogus charities so it is not suspicious, tell them what the study should find and then pay their colleagues for favourable peer reviews. Then send these studies to tabloids with selection of catchy headlines. Some things are off limits e.g. you no longer can buy study that says cigarettes are good.
I wonder if David Davis is naive or that comment was sarcastic.

Shush don't tell plebs the truth as otherwise they will work out why our diet has been tulip for decades.

[BR14]

I'm parsley.

Who's rosemary or thyme?

we know who Basel is.

[DoctorStrangelove]

I am onion!

I'm parsley.

Who's rosemary or thyme?

[BR14]

who are SAGE?

I am onion!

[darmstadt]

Part of the redacted material:

The framework proposes four new suggestions for increasing adherence, numbered as options 17 to 20 that SPI-B have not commented on before. These focus on: 17) increasing the financial penalties imposed; 18) introducing self-validation for movements; 19) reducing exercise and/or shopping; 20) reducing non-home working. We have reservations about options 17 to 19.
First, we are unclear what the evidence base is that the targeted behaviours are a substantial contribution to disease transmission, particularly given the high adherence rates currently observed in the community. Is there evidence, for example, that exercise conducted more than 1km away from the house leads to higher rates of transmission than exercise conducted within 1km of the house? Indeed, for this option, there is a risk that reducing the ability of people to apply some flexibility in choosing where to exercise will increase risk by preventing people from spreading out in nearby open space. Tightening restrictions without clear epidemiological need may lose support among people who have been attempting to adhere.

Second, the implicit assumption underlying options 17 to 19 is that people lack motivation to adhere to current guidance. This may apply to some specific subgroups (the example of young men has been given), but broadly the current levels of adherence we are witnessing suggest this is not the issue.

Third, there are equity issues within options 17 to 19. Any flat rate financial penalty will have a higher impact on poorer households, while the assumption that printing and completing paperwork is straightforward for all households can also be challenged. The assumption underlying restrictions on shopping frequency is that people can afford to buy in larger quantities. The risk of tension arising as the police are required to start penalising those who are not adhering should also be factored into considerations.

[LondonManc]

Just had an interesting conversation with a care worker.

Husband and wife in their 60s both tested.
She has COVID-19 symptoms but tests negative.
He has no symptoms but tests positive.

They were chatting to their ex-classmate from uni who now teaches English in China. One of their students has had three tests, several weeks apart and the results were positive, then negative, then positive. Either the tests are unreliable or you can indeed get it twice. Either way, not great news.

[CheeseSlice]

hmm... I wonder if Neil Ferguson was being 'influenced' in any way?...

surprised ZH hasn't done this one yet

[administrator]

Maybe a sockie, maybe not. What he/she/they/it said though is correct. Paid for scientific studies to try and sway legislation / public opinion are a real thing. As for sockies, they help pass the time and this is General so let them play IMO

[jamesbrown]

Feck off, gricer, you moistened bint.

[Old Greg]

Scientists are probably more corrupt than politicians. If you want a study that says anything you need to support your cause, you can just find a team of scientist and send them grants through some bogus charities so it is not suspicious, tell them what the study should find and then pay their colleagues for favourable peer reviews. Then send these studies to tabloids with selection of catchy headlines. Some things are off limits e.g. you no longer can buy study that says cigarettes are good.
I wonder if David Davis is naive or that comment was sarcastic.

Inneresting.

[elsergiovolador]

Former Brexit secretary David Davis has said no political appointee should attend Sage meetings to ensure there are no outside influences to the formulation of scientific advice.

Scientists are probably more corrupt than politicians. If you want a study that says anything you need to support your cause, you can just find a team of scientist and send them grants through some bogus charities so it is not suspicious, tell them what the study should find and then pay their colleagues for favourable peer reviews. Then send these studies to tabloids with selection of catchy headlines. Some things are off limits e.g. you no longer can buy study that says cigarettes are good.
I wonder if David Davis is naive or that comment was sarcastic.

[Scruff]

Probably something to do with Care in the Community.

FTFY

[Old Greg]

One of the documents:

Probably something to do with herd immunity.

[darmstadt]

One of the documents:

[darmstadt]

Here they are apart from:

These meetings are also regularly attended by officials from Her Majesty’s Government. These attendees have not been named.

List of participants of SAGE and related sub-groups - GOV.UK

The docs:

Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE): Coronavirus (COVID-19) response - GOV.UK