NPR

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:57 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:24 am https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55246112

So it looks like we almost reached elimination of community transmission of covid19 in the summer in Scotland but then ended up bringing it back into the country from holidays abroad. If only we had listened to experts like Devi Sridhar and managed the borders and travel better!

She’s a sociologist.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devi_Sridhar

Devi Lalita Sridhar (born 1984) is an American scientist and public health advisor, who holds the Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh. Her research considers the effectiveness of public health interventions and how to improve developmental assistance for health.[1][4][5] Sridhar previously worked at the University of Oxford from 2008. In 2014, she became the founding Director of the University of Edinburgh's Global Health Governance Programme. Sridhar compiled the first Wellcome Trust open research collection on the topic of Global Public Health.

Sridhar has written two books, The Battle Against Hunger: Choice, Circumstance and the World Bank[6] and Governing Global Health: Who Runs the World and Why?[7] Following the West African Ebola virus epidemic, she worked with the Harvard Global Health Institute and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine assess international responses to the outbreak and use it to better inform preparations with future pandemics. In 2020, Sridhar was part of the Royal Society's Data Evaluation and Learning for Viral Epidemics (DELVE) group which influences the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) committee of the government of the United Kingdom.[8] She also serves as a member of the Scottish Government's COVID-19 advisory group set up to provide advice on how to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic in Scotland.

Bachelor's in biology at age 18, career public health expert, and some bloke on the internet dismisses her as a sociologist

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:14 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:57 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:24 am https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55246112

So it looks like we almost reached elimination of community transmission of covid19 in the summer in Scotland but then ended up bringing it back into the country from holidays abroad. If only we had listened to experts like Devi Sridhar and managed the borders and travel better!

She’s a sociologist.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devi_Sridhar

Devi Lalita Sridhar (born 1984) is an American scientist and public health advisor, who holds the Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh. Her research considers the effectiveness of public health interventions and how to improve developmental assistance for health.[1][4][5] Sridhar previously worked at the University of Oxford from 2008. In 2014, she became the founding Director of the University of Edinburgh's Global Health Governance Programme. Sridhar compiled the first Wellcome Trust open research collection on the topic of Global Public Health.

Sridhar has written two books, The Battle Against Hunger: Choice, Circumstance and the World Bank[6] and Governing Global Health: Who Runs the World and Why?[7] Following the West African Ebola virus epidemic, she worked with the Harvard Global Health Institute and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine assess international responses to the outbreak and use it to better inform preparations with future pandemics. In 2020, Sridhar was part of the Royal Society's Data Evaluation and Learning for Viral Epidemics (DELVE) group which influences the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) committee of the government of the United Kingdom.[8] She also serves as a member of the Scottish Government's COVID-19 advisory group set up to provide advice on how to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic in Scotland.

Bachelor's in biology at age 18, career public health expert, and some bloke on the internet dismisses her as a sociologist

Did we really expect anything else from Bimbotwat?

I dont doubt her professional ability but where she let herself down was a few overtly political posts which imo people in those positions shouldn't be engaging in that sort of thing. I would go as far as to say they shouldnt even be on twitter and other platforms.

On the point of the article it is easy enough to say we wouldnt have had the same level of transmission as we have seen as we imported the new strains but i wonder how much public support there would have been if they tried to ban travel, anecdotally i dont see much adherence to the current rules in terms of home visits, travel outside of higher tiers etc as it is, people just seem to be getting on with things. Pubs, restaurants etc abiding by the rules by enlarge but i reckon the majority of folk arent so it comes down to enforceability when so many normal law abiding citizens are ignoring the rules.

They should have probably shut glasgow down faster at the start of September when its cases started to spike and we probably wouldnt have had it become quite as widespread.

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:24 am https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55246112

So it looks like we almost reached elimination of community transmission of covid19 in the summer in Scotland but then ended up bringing it back into the country from holidays abroad. If only we had listened to experts like Devi Sridhar and managed the borders and travel better!

Perhaps we should wait for this to be peer reviewed or for more studies to emerge before rushing to any conclusions.

However in light of the Scottish Government clearly having the ability to restrict travel form the rest of the UK and overseas (so not reliant on the UK government to do it as some have claimed here) I wonder if Devi Sridhar will criticise the SG for not putting in place a travel ban and mandatory quarantine for airport travellers until the 20th of November?

Regardless - a GB wide inward travel ban back in March was a huge missed opportunity.

tc27 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:34 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:24 am https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55246112

So it looks like we almost reached elimination of community transmission of covid19 in the summer in Scotland but then ended up bringing it back into the country from holidays abroad. If only we had listened to experts like Devi Sridhar and managed the borders and travel better!

Perhaps we should wait for this to be peer reviewed or for more studies to emerge before rushing to any conclusions.

However in light of the Scottish Government clearly having the ability to restrict travel form the rest of the UK and overseas (so not reliant on the UK government to do it as some have claimed here) I wonder if Devi Sridhar will criticise the SG for not putting in place a travel ban and mandatory quarantine for airport travellers until the 20th of November?

Regardless - a GB wide inward travel ban back in March was a huge missed opportunity.

I think that pattern of transmission has also been identified in other European countries, e.g. the re-emergence of Covid-19 in the Netherlands after the summer could be traced back to strains imported from Spanish tourist centres. In hindsight, allowing holiday travel last summer was probably the big mistake. Agree that once the second wave started emerging in the western Central Belt, more decisive action should have been taken more quickly. I'm not sure the people would have bought into it at that time though...so it would have had to get pretty repressive, , which might explain why the SG shied away from it.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:25 pm I dont doubt her professional ability but where she let herself down was a few overtly political posts which imo people in those positions shouldn't be engaging in that sort of thing. I would go as far as to say they shouldnt even be on twitter and other platforms.

On the point of the article it is easy enough to say we wouldnt have had the same level of transmission as we have seen as we imported the new strains but i wonder how much public support there would have been if they tried to ban travel, anecdotally i dont see much adherence to the current rules in terms of home visits, travel outside of higher tiers etc as it is, people just seem to be getting on with things. Pubs, restaurants etc abiding by the rules by enlarge but i reckon the majority of folk arent so it comes down to enforceability when so many normal law abiding citizens are ignoring the rules.

They should have probably shut glasgow down faster at the start of September when its cases started to spike and we probably wouldnt have had it become quite as widespread.

She is allowed to say what she wants, within reason. She is an unpaid member of a SG advisory group and has an opinion. She is not a representative of the SG nor of the SNP. There have been multiple advisors on SAGE and other UK Gov groups appearing on tv and writing articles, tweets, etc and giving their own personal views. That is what they do, they are independent academics and experts in their field who provide free input to SG and Gov advisory groups. They also have a right to hold a political opinion, although I am not sure that she has ever given an overtly political opinion on twitter, but I will wait to be corrected. To suggest she or any other member of a SG or UK Gov advisory group shouldn't have the right to provide a personal view or give their opinion on tv, in the press or by twitter is a bit scary, verging on the authoritarian!

I do agree about the public support issue though, depriving folk of their two weeks in Costa del Sol would have been a big ask. Would have been worth it though? If my granny had balls she would have been my grandad!

However the border issue is a key one and a big learning point. If we had followed the examples of NZ, Australia, etc in controlling spread from travel we might have been in a better place. I do look on enviously as they have crowds at rugby games and a normal'ish public and social life. Also contrary to some opinions on here SG doesn't have power to stop international travel, it can insist on quarantine though and impose travel restrictions to from different tiers in the country which includes airports. UK Gov is one with border control powers, these have not been devolved. UK Gov should have imposed travel restrictions asap once pandemic started.

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:23 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:25 pm I dont doubt her professional ability but where she let herself down was a few overtly political posts which imo people in those positions shouldn't be engaging in that sort of thing. I would go as far as to say they shouldnt even be on twitter and other platforms.

On the point of the article it is easy enough to say we wouldnt have had the same level of transmission as we have seen as we imported the new strains but i wonder how much public support there would have been if they tried to ban travel, anecdotally i dont see much adherence to the current rules in terms of home visits, travel outside of higher tiers etc as it is, people just seem to be getting on with things. Pubs, restaurants etc abiding by the rules by enlarge but i reckon the majority of folk arent so it comes down to enforceability when so many normal law abiding citizens are ignoring the rules.

They should have probably shut glasgow down faster at the start of September when its cases started to spike and we probably wouldnt have had it become quite as widespread.

She is allowed to say what she wants, within reason. She is an unpaid member of a SG advisory group and has an opinion. She is not a representative of the SG nor of the SNP. There have been multiple advisors on SAGE and other UK Gov groups appearing on tv and writing articles, tweets, etc and giving their own personal views. That is what they do, they are independent academics and experts in their field who provide free input to SG and Gov advisory groups. They also have a right to hold a political opinion, although I am not sure that she has ever given an overtly political opinion on twitter, but I will wait to be corrected. To suggest she or any other member of a SG or UK Gov advisory group shouldn't have the right to provide a personal view or give their opinion on tv, in the press or by twitter is a bit scary, verging on the authoritarian!

I do agree about the public support issue though, depriving folk of their two weeks in Costa del Sol would have been a big ask. Would have been worth it though? If my granny had balls she would have been my grandad!

However the border issue is a key one and a big learning point. If we had followed the examples of NZ, Australia, etc in controlling spread from travel we might have been in a better place. I do look on enviously as they have crowds at rugby games and a normal'ish public and social life. Also contrary to some opinions on here SG doesn't have power to stop international travel, it can insist on quarantine though and impose travel restrictions to from different tiers in the country which includes airports. UK Gov is one with border control powers, these have not been devolved. UK Gov should have imposed travel restrictions asap once pandemic started.

And we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Unpaid or otherwise I dont think they should be airing their political opinions on social or traditional media if they're advisers to SAGE or any other advisory group, by helping to advise on governemnt strategy as part of this group they are no longer independent.

However the border issue is a key one and a big learning point. If we had followed the examples of NZ, Australia, etc in controlling spread from travel we might have been in a better place. I do look on enviously as they have crowds at rugby games and a normal'ish public and social life.

We should have leveraged our geography as an island to do this..absolute madness that people were freely arriving from the worst parts of Italy well into the spring.

Also contrary to some opinions on here SG doesn't have power to stop international travel, it can insist on quarantine though and impose travel restrictions to from different tiers in the country which includes airports. UK Gov is one with border control powers, these have not been devolved. UK Gov should have imposed travel restrictions asap once pandemic started.

Not to get too far into the long grass of devolutionary grey areas but I understand its not actually clear the SG has the power to stop people travelling from the rUK into Scotland and force quarantine/tests at airports but they have still legislated for it and presumably PS and other authorities are enforcing it. And unless someone challenges it in the high/supreme court if will arguably apply de facto.

The same legislation could have being passed in March and forcing quarantine requirements is a defacto travel ban for anyone unless they are absolutely determined to get into Scotland.

Finally I can recall no public statement or overt pressure from anyone in the SG asking to UKG to close borders being expressed from that period. Both national and devolved government were too timid on this and thousands of people died as a result.

Edit.

I am not sure how anyone can say the SG doesn't have the power to stop/allow international travel when its literally doing it right now:

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:33 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:23 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:25 pm I dont doubt her professional ability but where she let herself down was a few overtly political posts which imo people in those positions shouldn't be engaging in that sort of thing. I would go as far as to say they shouldnt even be on twitter and other platforms.

On the point of the article it is easy enough to say we wouldnt have had the same level of transmission as we have seen as we imported the new strains but i wonder how much public support there would have been if they tried to ban travel, anecdotally i dont see much adherence to the current rules in terms of home visits, travel outside of higher tiers etc as it is, people just seem to be getting on with things. Pubs, restaurants etc abiding by the rules by enlarge but i reckon the majority of folk arent so it comes down to enforceability when so many normal law abiding citizens are ignoring the rules.

They should have probably shut glasgow down faster at the start of September when its cases started to spike and we probably wouldnt have had it become quite as widespread.

She is allowed to say what she wants, within reason. She is an unpaid member of a SG advisory group and has an opinion. She is not a representative of the SG nor of the SNP. There have been multiple advisors on SAGE and other UK Gov groups appearing on tv and writing articles, tweets, etc and giving their own personal views. That is what they do, they are independent academics and experts in their field who provide free input to SG and Gov advisory groups. They also have a right to hold a political opinion, although I am not sure that she has ever given an overtly political opinion on twitter, but I will wait to be corrected. To suggest she or any other member of a SG or UK Gov advisory group shouldn't have the right to provide a personal view or give their opinion on tv, in the press or by twitter is a bit scary, verging on the authoritarian!

I do agree about the public support issue though, depriving folk of their two weeks in Costa del Sol would have been a big ask. Would have been worth it though? If my granny had balls she would have been my grandad!

However the border issue is a key one and a big learning point. If we had followed the examples of NZ, Australia, etc in controlling spread from travel we might have been in a better place. I do look on enviously as they have crowds at rugby games and a normal'ish public and social life. Also contrary to some opinions on here SG doesn't have power to stop international travel, it can insist on quarantine though and impose travel restrictions to from different tiers in the country which includes airports. UK Gov is one with border control powers, these have not been devolved. UK Gov should have imposed travel restrictions asap once pandemic started.

And we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Unpaid or otherwise I dont think they should be airing their political opinions on social or traditional media if they're advisers to SAGE or any other advisory group, by helping to advise on governemnt strategy as part of this group they are no longer independent.

If you try to implement that, any leading academic will refuse to take part. And then you don't get the advice of leading practitioners and you don't get a range of views.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:14 am

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:57 am

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:24 am https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55246112

So it looks like we almost reached elimination of community transmission of covid19 in the summer in Scotland but then ended up bringing it back into the country from holidays abroad. If only we had listened to experts like Devi Sridhar and managed the borders and travel better!

She’s a sociologist.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devi_Sridhar

Devi Lalita Sridhar (born 1984) is an American scientist and public health advisor, who holds the Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh. Her research considers the effectiveness of public health interventions and how to improve developmental assistance for health.[1][4][5] Sridhar previously worked at the University of Oxford from 2008. In 2014, she became the founding Director of the University of Edinburgh's Global Health Governance Programme. Sridhar compiled the first Wellcome Trust open research collection on the topic of Global Public Health.

Sridhar has written two books, The Battle Against Hunger: Choice, Circumstance and the World Bank[6] and Governing Global Health: Who Runs the World and Why?[7] Following the West African Ebola virus epidemic, she worked with the Harvard Global Health Institute and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine assess international responses to the outbreak and use it to better inform preparations with future pandemics. In 2020, Sridhar was part of the Royal Society's Data Evaluation and Learning for Viral Epidemics (DELVE) group which influences the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) committee of the government of the United Kingdom.[8] She also serves as a member of the Scottish Government's COVID-19 advisory group set up to provide advice on how to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic in Scotland.

Bachelor's in biology at age 18, career public health expert, and some bloke on the internet dismisses her as a sociologist

She did a 2 year biology minor , it’s the equivalent of an A level. She’s a sociologist. That’s a fact not a dismissal.

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:41 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:33 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:23 pm

She is allowed to say what she wants, within reason. She is an unpaid member of a SG advisory group and has an opinion. She is not a representative of the SG nor of the SNP. There have been multiple advisors on SAGE and other UK Gov groups appearing on tv and writing articles, tweets, etc and giving their own personal views. That is what they do, they are independent academics and experts in their field who provide free input to SG and Gov advisory groups. They also have a right to hold a political opinion, although I am not sure that she has ever given an overtly political opinion on twitter, but I will wait to be corrected. To suggest she or any other member of a SG or UK Gov advisory group shouldn't have the right to provide a personal view or give their opinion on tv, in the press or by twitter is a bit scary, verging on the authoritarian!

I do agree about the public support issue though, depriving folk of their two weeks in Costa del Sol would have been a big ask. Would have been worth it though? If my granny had balls she would have been my grandad!

However the border issue is a key one and a big learning point. If we had followed the examples of NZ, Australia, etc in controlling spread from travel we might have been in a better place. I do look on enviously as they have crowds at rugby games and a normal'ish public and social life. Also contrary to some opinions on here SG doesn't have power to stop international travel, it can insist on quarantine though and impose travel restrictions to from different tiers in the country which includes airports. UK Gov is one with border control powers, these have not been devolved. UK Gov should have imposed travel restrictions asap once pandemic started.

And we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Unpaid or otherwise I dont think they should be airing their political opinions on social or traditional media if they're advisers to SAGE or any other advisory group, by helping to advise on governemnt strategy as part of this group they are no longer independent.

If you try to implement that, any leading academic will refuse to take part. And then you don't get the advice of leading practitioners and you don't get a range of views.

I never realised that leading academics valued the need to spout forth on social media so highly that they wouldnt engage to help the country and population through a national emergency.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:08 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:41 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:33 pm

And we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Unpaid or otherwise I dont think they should be airing their political opinions on social or traditional media if they're advisers to SAGE or any other advisory group, by helping to advise on governemnt strategy as part of this group they are no longer independent.

If you try to implement that, any leading academic will refuse to take part. And then you don't get the advice of leading practitioners and you don't get a range of views.

I never realised that leading academics valued the need to spout forth on social media so highly that they wouldnt engage to help the country and population through a national emergency.

Oh, so you just don’t want them to do it on social media? So conferences, interviews, journalists, documentary programmes etc are all ok then?

Senior academics will fight like hell against any restraint on their ‘academic freedom’, even if it’s not in their interests. It doesn’t matter how you rephrase that, what different viewpoint you put on it, they won’t tolerate it. There’s nothing in it for them, personally, if someone comes up to them and says ‘we’d like you to give us advice, for free, and we’re going to limit your freedom to comment on anything controversial while you give us the benefit of your experience for no recompense’.

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:18 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:08 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:41 pm

If you try to implement that, any leading academic will refuse to take part. And then you don't get the advice of leading practitioners and you don't get a range of views.

I never realised that leading academics valued the need to spout forth on social media so highly that they wouldnt engage to help the country and population through a national emergency.

Oh, so you just don’t want them to do it on social media? So conferences, interviews, journalists, documentary programmes etc are all ok then?

Senior academics will fight like hell against any restraint on their ‘academic freedom’, even if it’s not in their interests. It doesn’t matter how you rephrase that, what different viewpoint you put on it, they won’t tolerate it. There’s nothing in it for them, personally, if someone comes up to them and says ‘we’d like you to give us advice, for free, and we’re going to limit your freedom to comment on anything controversial while you give us the benefit of your experience for no recompense’.

I’m not arguing with you because this is your expertise, but isn’t taking to Twitter a world away from conferences, interviews etc?

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:30 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:18 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:08 pm

I never realised that leading academics valued the need to spout forth on social media so highly that they wouldnt engage to help the country and population through a national emergency.

Oh, so you just don’t want them to do it on social media? So conferences, interviews, journalists, documentary programmes etc are all ok then?

Senior academics will fight like hell against any restraint on their ‘academic freedom’, even if it’s not in their interests. It doesn’t matter how you rephrase that, what different viewpoint you put on it, they won’t tolerate it. There’s nothing in it for them, personally, if someone comes up to them and says ‘we’d like you to give us advice, for free, and we’re going to limit your freedom to comment on anything controversial while you give us the benefit of your experience for no recompense’.

I’m not arguing with you because this is your expertise, but isn’t taking to Twitter a world away from conferences, interviews etc?

Yeah, but NL at first said they shouldn’t be airing their political opinions on social or traditional media. Then he said they shouldn’t spout forth on social media. Just want him to clarify what he actually wants to ban them from doing, when he’s not paying them for their years of experience, knowledge and insight.

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:38 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:30 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:18 pm

Oh, so you just don’t want them to do it on social media? So conferences, interviews, journalists, documentary programmes etc are all ok then?

Senior academics will fight like hell against any restraint on their ‘academic freedom’, even if it’s not in their interests. It doesn’t matter how you rephrase that, what different viewpoint you put on it, they won’t tolerate it. There’s nothing in it for them, personally, if someone comes up to them and says ‘we’d like you to give us advice, for free, and we’re going to limit your freedom to comment on anything controversial while you give us the benefit of your experience for no recompense’.

I’m not arguing with you because this is your expertise, but isn’t taking to Twitter a world away from conferences, interviews etc?

Yeah, but NL at first said they shouldn’t be airing their political opinions on social or traditional media. Then he said they shouldn’t spout forth on social media. Just want him to clarify what he actually wants to ban them from doing, when he’s not paying them for their years of experience, knowledge and insight.

Well I think staying politically neutral on any medium should be a prerequisite. If they want the kudos that goes with being on SAGE and the like it should go with the territory.

I also don’t think their advice should be free, they should be paid for their time and expertise and thus bound along similar lines to the civil service.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 8:40 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:38 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:30 pm

I’m not arguing with you because this is your expertise, but isn’t taking to Twitter a world away from conferences, interviews etc?

Yeah, but NL at first said they shouldn’t be airing their political opinions on social or traditional media. Then he said they shouldn’t spout forth on social media. Just want him to clarify what he actually wants to ban them from doing, when he’s not paying them for their years of experience, knowledge and insight.

Well I think staying politically neutral on any medium should be a prerequisite. If they want the kudos that goes with being on SAGE and the like it should go with the territory.

I also don’t think their advice should be free, they should be paid for their time and expertise and thus bound along similar lines to the civil service.

Never going to happen. Being on a committee advising the Scottish government carries little kudos compared to editing journals with high impact ratings. Or chairing conferences in their field. These people are all highly paid already and wouldn’t compromise the academic reputation by limiting what they could talk about publicly.

What you you’re pushing is the thin end of authoritarianism.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:25 pm I dont doubt her professional ability but where she let herself down was a few overtly political posts which imo people in those positions shouldn't be engaging in that sort of thing. I would go as far as to say they shouldnt even be on twitter and other platforms.

On the point of the article it is easy enough to say we wouldnt have had the same level of transmission as we have seen as we imported the new strains but i wonder how much public support there would have been if they tried to ban travel, anecdotally i dont see much adherence to the current rules in terms of home visits, travel outside of higher tiers etc as it is, people just seem to be getting on with things. Pubs, restaurants etc abiding by the rules by enlarge but i reckon the majority of folk arent so it comes down to enforceability when so many normal law abiding citizens are ignoring the rules.

They should have probably shut glasgow down faster at the start of September when its cases started to spike and we probably wouldnt have had it become quite as widespread.

I agree and I'd actually go further in my general condemnation of it: the continued wading in of public officials (in various institutions) to highly contentious matters of public debate undermines the institution they're representing. Politicizing themselves and, in turn, their institution.

Caley_Red wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:18 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:25 pm I dont doubt her professional ability but where she let herself down was a few overtly political posts which imo people in those positions shouldn't be engaging in that sort of thing. I would go as far as to say they shouldnt even be on twitter and other platforms.

On the point of the article it is easy enough to say we wouldnt have had the same level of transmission as we have seen as we imported the new strains but i wonder how much public support there would have been if they tried to ban travel, anecdotally i dont see much adherence to the current rules in terms of home visits, travel outside of higher tiers etc as it is, people just seem to be getting on with things. Pubs, restaurants etc abiding by the rules by enlarge but i reckon the majority of folk arent so it comes down to enforceability when so many normal law abiding citizens are ignoring the rules.

They should have probably shut glasgow down faster at the start of September when its cases started to spike and we probably wouldnt have had it become quite as widespread.

I agree and I'd actually go further in my general condemnation of it: the continued wading in of public officials (in various institutions) to highly contentious matters of public debate undermines the institution they're representing. Politicizing themselves and, in turn, their institution.

So academics in areas of public policy can never say anything about public policy? And what constitutes a public official? University employees aren’t officials of the state. Or are you saying that anyone who works for an organisation that receives public money shouldn’t comment?

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:34 pm

Caley_Red wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:18 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:25 pm I dont doubt her professional ability but where she let herself down was a few overtly political posts which imo people in those positions shouldn't be engaging in that sort of thing. I would go as far as to say they shouldnt even be on twitter and other platforms.

On the point of the article it is easy enough to say we wouldnt have had the same level of transmission as we have seen as we imported the new strains but i wonder how much public support there would have been if they tried to ban travel, anecdotally i dont see much adherence to the current rules in terms of home visits, travel outside of higher tiers etc as it is, people just seem to be getting on with things. Pubs, restaurants etc abiding by the rules by enlarge but i reckon the majority of folk arent so it comes down to enforceability when so many normal law abiding citizens are ignoring the rules.

They should have probably shut glasgow down faster at the start of September when its cases started to spike and we probably wouldnt have had it become quite as widespread.

I agree and I'd actually go further in my general condemnation of it: the continued wading in of public officials (in various institutions) to highly contentious matters of public debate undermines the institution they're representing. Politicizing themselves and, in turn, their institution.

So academics in areas of public policy can never say anything about public policy? And what constitutes a public official? University employees aren’t officials of the state. Or are you saying that anyone who works for an organisation that receives public money shouldn’t comment?

My point was referring to public officials generally (perhaps sloppily put) rather than the specific case here. Indeed, I have no idea what this woman said at all.

Caley_Red wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:36 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:34 pm

Caley_Red wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 10:18 pm

I agree and I'd actually go further in my general condemnation of it: the continued wading in of public officials (in various institutions) to highly contentious matters of public debate undermines the institution they're representing. Politicizing themselves and, in turn, their institution.

So academics in areas of public policy can never say anything about public policy? And what constitutes a public official? University employees aren’t officials of the state. Or are you saying that anyone who works for an organisation that receives public money shouldn’t comment?

My point was referring to public officials generally (perhaps sloppily put) rather than the specific case here. Indeed, I have no idea what this woman said at all.

She’s not really a public official though. She’s an unpaid adviser who gives her time freely of her own good will. Hard to impose restrictions on someone doing that. Civil servants generally have to be very careful about how and where they express political views.

What's a public official? My university is part-funded by the SG (like all of them are), and partly through all sorts of other public and private money. I have also had dealings with local, national and European governments to advise on health policy. Does that make me a public official?

Is someone seriously arguing that because I have in the past advised the SG on health policy as an academic with expertise in that field (for free), I should not say what I think about independence on a rugby forum?

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 8:51 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 8:40 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:38 pm

Yeah, but NL at first said they shouldn’t be airing their political opinions on social or traditional media. Then he said they shouldn’t spout forth on social media. Just want him to clarify what he actually wants to ban them from doing, when he’s not paying them for their years of experience, knowledge and insight.

Well I think staying politically neutral on any medium should be a prerequisite. If they want the kudos that goes with being on SAGE and the like it should go with the territory.

I also don’t think their advice should be free, they should be paid for their time and expertise and thus bound along similar lines to the civil service.

Never going to happen. Being on a committee advising the Scottish government carries little kudos compared to editing journals with high impact ratings. Or chairing conferences in their field. These people are all highly paid already and wouldn’t compromise the academic reputation by limiting what they could talk about publicly.

What you you’re pushing is the thin end of authoritarianism.

I am not just speaking about this specific case but it also highlights to me where the Scottish Government have now waded into areas that ahve been pretty grey in the whole what is devolved and what isnt. Public Health is but i dont see what they gain by setting up mini SAGE as opposed to just taking direction from the proper SAGE experts who there most certainly will be kudos on being on that but equally they should be paid for it.

I would contrast it with the BoE who definitely speak about monetary policy but dont comment on political issues unless in extreme examples like with Brexit or Indy when whatever they say is then leapt on as inevitably they say that Brexit/Indy will be bad on economic terms as that is their professional opinion, they are very measured with respect to when they are probed by the journos who try and push a political angle.

This is not remotely close to authoritarianism, if we are trying to shut them up when they arent on these committees or have left because they are unhappy that their advice isnt taken you would have a point, being an expert that is shaping government policy not commenting on political matters, sorry no that is not authoritarianism.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:08 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 8:51 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 8:40 pm

Well I think staying politically neutral on any medium should be a prerequisite. If they want the kudos that goes with being on SAGE and the like it should go with the territory.

I also don’t think their advice should be free, they should be paid for their time and expertise and thus bound along similar lines to the civil service.

Never going to happen. Being on a committee advising the Scottish government carries little kudos compared to editing journals with high impact ratings. Or chairing conferences in their field. These people are all highly paid already and wouldn’t compromise the academic reputation by limiting what they could talk about publicly.

What you you’re pushing is the thin end of authoritarianism.

I am not just speaking about this specific case but it also highlights to me where the Scottish Government have now waded into areas that ahve been pretty grey in the whole what is devolved and what isnt. Public Health is but i dont see what they gain by setting up mini SAGE as opposed to just taking direction from the proper SAGE experts who there most certainly will be kudos on being on that but equally they should be paid for it.

I would contrast it with the BoE who definitely speak about monetary policy but dont comment on political issues unless in extreme examples like with Brexit or Indy when whatever they say is then leapt on as inevitably they say that Brexit/Indy will be bad on economic terms as that is their professional opinion, they are very measured with respect to when they are probed by the journos who try and push a political angle.

This is not remotely close to authoritarianism, if we are trying to shut them up when they arent on these committees or have left because they are unhappy that their advice isnt taken you would have a point, being an expert that is shaping government policy not commenting on political matters, sorry no that is not authoritarianism.

PH is a devolved issue, what is more important and core to a Gov than protecting the health of its people! This is not a grey area, although I agree some of the levers to ensure PH are less clear, such as controlling borders. The SG have set up their own group to provide them with expert advice, the members are just as expert as the 'proper Sage experts', whatever that means, but they will have more knowledge of the Scottish context. SG will take advice from both, and lots of other groups, which seems sensible to me? Don't see what the issue is here?

If you start paying these advisors then you set up a system whereby their expert advice might be constrained by not losing their paid role, they in effect lose their independence and ability to say what they want. It also suggests a misunderstanding of what these folk bring to the table and how it works - they will all be expert in their own areas but will often disagree with other experts and have different views as to what is happening, why it is happening and what needs to be done. Science is full of grey areas, they will not come up with an 'answer' or a 'solution' but provide scenarios or options to be considered. These folk do not determine policy, they provide their own expert views - the civil service will pull it together, set it into wider context and put in front of politicians, it is the politicians who determine policy. If you want paid advisors then think Trump and where that could lead. Or perhaps even Priti Patel?

They can comment on whatever they want including political matters. They are professional people and will behave appropriately about the meetings they attend and any confidentiality issues. They give their advice freely and are not making or determining policy. It is their independence, academic freedom and ability to speak out and express their own views and thoughts, even if i disagree with them, that is important. To try and muzzle folk because they are willing to provide expert advice to a Gov, regardless of its politics, is pretty authoritarian to me.

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:10 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:08 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 8:51 pm

Never going to happen. Being on a committee advising the Scottish government carries little kudos compared to editing journals with high impact ratings. Or chairing conferences in their field. These people are all highly paid already and wouldn’t compromise the academic reputation by limiting what they could talk about publicly.

What you you’re pushing is the thin end of authoritarianism.

I am not just speaking about this specific case but it also highlights to me where the Scottish Government have now waded into areas that ahve been pretty grey in the whole what is devolved and what isnt. Public Health is but i dont see what they gain by setting up mini SAGE as opposed to just taking direction from the proper SAGE experts who there most certainly will be kudos on being on that but equally they should be paid for it.

I would contrast it with the BoE who definitely speak about monetary policy but dont comment on political issues unless in extreme examples like with Brexit or Indy when whatever they say is then leapt on as inevitably they say that Brexit/Indy will be bad on economic terms as that is their professional opinion, they are very measured with respect to when they are probed by the journos who try and push a political angle.

This is not remotely close to authoritarianism, if we are trying to shut them up when they arent on these committees or have left because they are unhappy that their advice isnt taken you would have a point, being an expert that is shaping government policy not commenting on political matters, sorry no that is not authoritarianism.

PH is a devolved issue, what is more important and core to a Gov than protecting the health of its people! This is not a grey area, although I agree some of the levers to ensure PH are less clear, such as controlling borders. The SG have set up their own group to provide them with expert advice, the members are just as expert as the 'proper Sage experts', whatever that means, but they will have more knowledge of the Scottish context. SG will take advice from both, and lots of other groups, which seems sensible to me? Don't see what the issue is here?

If you start paying these advisors then you set up a system whereby their expert advice might be constrained by not losing their paid role, they in effect lose their independence and ability to say what they want. It also suggests a misunderstanding of what these folk bring to the table and how it works - they will all be expert in their own areas but will often disagree with other experts and have different views as to what is happening, why it is happening and what needs to be done. Science is full of grey areas, they will not come up with an 'answer' or a 'solution' but provide scenarios or options to be considered. These folk do not determine policy, they provide their own expert views - the civil service will pull it together, set it into wider context and put in front of politicians, it is the politicians who determine policy. If you want paid advisors then think Trump and where that could lead. Or perhaps even Priti Patel?

They can comment on whatever they want including political matters. They are professional people and will behave appropriately about the meetings they attend and any confidentiality issues. They give their advice freely and are not making or determining policy. It is their independence, academic freedom and ability to speak out and express their own views and thoughts, even if i disagree with them, that is important. To try and muzzle folk because they are willing to provide expert advice to a Gov, regardless of its politics, is pretty authoritarian to me.

Well put. Saved me typing a long answer.

Also, If a public health researcher is not allowed to comment on public health research, which is, by its nature, going to have some political implications, then they are no longer able to do their main role as a public health researcher.

If they're paid, they lose all their independence.

The Bank of England is wholly owned by the government. It's a completely different thing from a university and its researchers. That's an entirely false equivalence on NLs part.

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:10 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:08 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 8:51 pm

Never going to happen. Being on a committee advising the Scottish government carries little kudos compared to editing journals with high impact ratings. Or chairing conferences in their field. These people are all highly paid already and wouldn’t compromise the academic reputation by limiting what they could talk about publicly.

What you you’re pushing is the thin end of authoritarianism.

I am not just speaking about this specific case but it also highlights to me where the Scottish Government have now waded into areas that ahve been pretty grey in the whole what is devolved and what isnt. Public Health is but i dont see what they gain by setting up mini SAGE as opposed to just taking direction from the proper SAGE experts who there most certainly will be kudos on being on that but equally they should be paid for it.

I would contrast it with the BoE who definitely speak about monetary policy but dont comment on political issues unless in extreme examples like with Brexit or Indy when whatever they say is then leapt on as inevitably they say that Brexit/Indy will be bad on economic terms as that is their professional opinion, they are very measured with respect to when they are probed by the journos who try and push a political angle.

This is not remotely close to authoritarianism, if we are trying to shut them up when they arent on these committees or have left because they are unhappy that their advice isnt taken you would have a point, being an expert that is shaping government policy not commenting on political matters, sorry no that is not authoritarianism.

PH is a devolved issue, what is more important and core to a Gov than protecting the health of its people! This is not a grey area, although I agree some of the levers to ensure PH are less clear, such as controlling borders. The SG have set up their own group to provide them with expert advice, the members are just as expert as the 'proper Sage experts', whatever that means, but they will have more knowledge of the Scottish context. SG will take advice from both, and lots of other groups, which seems sensible to me? Don't see what the issue is here?

If you start paying these advisors then you set up a system whereby their expert advice might be constrained by not losing their paid role, they in effect lose their independence and ability to say what they want. It also suggests a misunderstanding of what these folk bring to the table and how it works - they will all be expert in their own areas but will often disagree with other experts and have different views as to what is happening, why it is happening and what needs to be done. Science is full of grey areas, they will not come up with an 'answer' or a 'solution' but provide scenarios or options to be considered. These folk do not determine policy, they provide their own expert views - the civil service will pull it together, set it into wider context and put in front of politicians, it is the politicians who determine policy. If you want paid advisors then think Trump and where that could lead. Or perhaps even Priti Patel?

They can comment on whatever they want including political matters. They are professional people and will behave appropriately about the meetings they attend and any confidentiality issues. They give their advice freely and are not making or determining policy. It is their independence, academic freedom and ability to speak out and express their own views and thoughts, even if i disagree with them, that is important. To try and muzzle folk because they are willing to provide expert advice to a Gov, regardless of its politics, is pretty authoritarian to me.

The health of the population is just as important down south but they clearly have better resources just by virtue of pulling in top academics throughout the UK including Scotland. In the sphere of this virus i really dont see what differentiates us from the RoUK given the similar outcomes, similar mistakes have been made both sides of the border. I really dont see the need for a separate Scottish Covid mini-SAGE they have been proven to be as effective or ineffective as those down south. The mixed messaging throughout this pandemic with the rules constantly changing and different countries within the UK operating to different rules has also not helped this.

With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to now say we should have shut borders and limited travel, there was zero appetite for this back in Feb/March when it would have made a difference, probably should have been in January.

Of course they can comment on whatever they want, I just dont think they should as it impairs the message they are giving as it shows they are not free from bias and irrespective of political leanings you will have the other side disagreeing with it just because it came from the other side you, have to be extremely naive to think otherwise. For the record one of Sridhars proclamations was that Unionists were anti-Scottish, she later retracted this but this is not indicative of a professional who will behave appropriately and just insulted half of Scotland.

Professionals are not beyond reproach irrespective of how many letters they get after their name, if they are acting in the public interest by sitting on these committees giving their advice they have a duty to be far more careful with their words and imo stick to areas of their expertise. By commenting in the way she has done her advice on things she does know a lot about is viewed with suspicion especially in the charged political arena of Scotland.

This is not authoritarianism however much of a leap you and Biffer want to make, if they are unhappy being bound in this way they are more than able to leave the committee and spout forth to all and sundry on pretty much any subject they choose, well until Yousef gets his hate crime bill through parliament, now that is authoritarian in case you want to comment.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:24 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:10 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:08 am

I am not just speaking about this specific case but it also highlights to me where the Scottish Government have now waded into areas that ahve been pretty grey in the whole what is devolved and what isnt. Public Health is but i dont see what they gain by setting up mini SAGE as opposed to just taking direction from the proper SAGE experts who there most certainly will be kudos on being on that but equally they should be paid for it.

I would contrast it with the BoE who definitely speak about monetary policy but dont comment on political issues unless in extreme examples like with Brexit or Indy when whatever they say is then leapt on as inevitably they say that Brexit/Indy will be bad on economic terms as that is their professional opinion, they are very measured with respect to when they are probed by the journos who try and push a political angle.

This is not remotely close to authoritarianism, if we are trying to shut them up when they arent on these committees or have left because they are unhappy that their advice isnt taken you would have a point, being an expert that is shaping government policy not commenting on political matters, sorry no that is not authoritarianism.

PH is a devolved issue, what is more important and core to a Gov than protecting the health of its people! This is not a grey area, although I agree some of the levers to ensure PH are less clear, such as controlling borders. The SG have set up their own group to provide them with expert advice, the members are just as expert as the 'proper Sage experts', whatever that means, but they will have more knowledge of the Scottish context. SG will take advice from both, and lots of other groups, which seems sensible to me? Don't see what the issue is here?

If you start paying these advisors then you set up a system whereby their expert advice might be constrained by not losing their paid role, they in effect lose their independence and ability to say what they want. It also suggests a misunderstanding of what these folk bring to the table and how it works - they will all be expert in their own areas but will often disagree with other experts and have different views as to what is happening, why it is happening and what needs to be done. Science is full of grey areas, they will not come up with an 'answer' or a 'solution' but provide scenarios or options to be considered. These folk do not determine policy, they provide their own expert views - the civil service will pull it together, set it into wider context and put in front of politicians, it is the politicians who determine policy. If you want paid advisors then think Trump and where that could lead. Or perhaps even Priti Patel?

They can comment on whatever they want including political matters. They are professional people and will behave appropriately about the meetings they attend and any confidentiality issues. They give their advice freely and are not making or determining policy. It is their independence, academic freedom and ability to speak out and express their own views and thoughts, even if i disagree with them, that is important. To try and muzzle folk because they are willing to provide expert advice to a Gov, regardless of its politics, is pretty authoritarian to me.

The health of the population is just as important down south but they clearly have better resources just by virtue of pulling in top academics throughout the UK including Scotland. In the sphere of this virus i really dont see what differentiates us from the RoUK given the similar outcomes, similar mistakes have been made both sides of the border. I really dont see the need for a separate Scottish Covid mini-SAGE they have been proven to be as effective or ineffective as those down south. The mixed messaging throughout this pandemic with the rules constantly changing and different countries within the UK operating to different rules has also not helped this.

With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to now say we should have shut borders and limited travel, there was zero appetite for this back in Feb/March when it would have made a difference, probably should have been in January.

Of course they can comment on whatever they want, I just dont think they should as it impairs the message they are giving as it shows they are not free from bias and irrespective of political leanings you will have the other side disagreeing with it just because it came from the other side you, have to be extremely naive to think otherwise. For the record one of Sridhars proclamations was that Unionists were anti-Scottish, she later retracted this but this is not indicative of a professional who will behave appropriately and just insulted half of Scotland.

Professionals are not beyond reproach irrespective of how many letters they get after their name, if they are acting in the public interest by sitting on these committees giving their advice they have a duty to be far more careful with their words and imo stick to areas of their expertise. By commenting in the way she has done her advice on things she does know a lot about is viewed with suspicion especially in the charged political arena of Scotland.

This is not authoritarianism however much of a leap you and Biffer want to make, if they are unhappy being bound in this way they are more than able to leave the committee and spout forth to all and sundry on pretty much any subject they choose, well until Yousef gets his hate crime bill through parliament, now that is authoritarian in case you want to comment.

this is not the same as banning them from doing it, which you suggested in a previous post and refer to again in your last paragraph.

To be clear, do you want academics giving advice to government to be banned from speaking about those topics publicly on social or traditional media?

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:30 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:24 pm

dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:10 pm

PH is a devolved issue, what is more important and core to a Gov than protecting the health of its people! This is not a grey area, although I agree some of the levers to ensure PH are less clear, such as controlling borders. The SG have set up their own group to provide them with expert advice, the members are just as expert as the 'proper Sage experts', whatever that means, but they will have more knowledge of the Scottish context. SG will take advice from both, and lots of other groups, which seems sensible to me? Don't see what the issue is here?

If you start paying these advisors then you set up a system whereby their expert advice might be constrained by not losing their paid role, they in effect lose their independence and ability to say what they want. It also suggests a misunderstanding of what these folk bring to the table and how it works - they will all be expert in their own areas but will often disagree with other experts and have different views as to what is happening, why it is happening and what needs to be done. Science is full of grey areas, they will not come up with an 'answer' or a 'solution' but provide scenarios or options to be considered. These folk do not determine policy, they provide their own expert views - the civil service will pull it together, set it into wider context and put in front of politicians, it is the politicians who determine policy. If you want paid advisors then think Trump and where that could lead. Or perhaps even Priti Patel?

They can comment on whatever they want including political matters. They are professional people and will behave appropriately about the meetings they attend and any confidentiality issues. They give their advice freely and are not making or determining policy. It is their independence, academic freedom and ability to speak out and express their own views and thoughts, even if i disagree with them, that is important. To try and muzzle folk because they are willing to provide expert advice to a Gov, regardless of its politics, is pretty authoritarian to me.

The health of the population is just as important down south but they clearly have better resources just by virtue of pulling in top academics throughout the UK including Scotland. In the sphere of this virus i really dont see what differentiates us from the RoUK given the similar outcomes, similar mistakes have been made both sides of the border. I really dont see the need for a separate Scottish Covid mini-SAGE they have been proven to be as effective or ineffective as those down south. The mixed messaging throughout this pandemic with the rules constantly changing and different countries within the UK operating to different rules has also not helped this.

With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to now say we should have shut borders and limited travel, there was zero appetite for this back in Feb/March when it would have made a difference, probably should have been in January.

Of course they can comment on whatever they want, I just dont think they should as it impairs the message they are giving as it shows they are not free from bias and irrespective of political leanings you will have the other side disagreeing with it just because it came from the other side you, have to be extremely naive to think otherwise. For the record one of Sridhars proclamations was that Unionists were anti-Scottish, she later retracted this but this is not indicative of a professional who will behave appropriately and just insulted half of Scotland.

Professionals are not beyond reproach irrespective of how many letters they get after their name, if they are acting in the public interest by sitting on these committees giving their advice they have a duty to be far more careful with their words and imo stick to areas of their expertise. By commenting in the way she has done her advice on things she does know a lot about is viewed with suspicion especially in the charged political arena of Scotland.

This is not authoritarianism however much of a leap you and Biffer want to make, if they are unhappy being bound in this way they are more than able to leave the committee and spout forth to all and sundry on pretty much any subject they choose, well until Yousef gets his hate crime bill through parliament, now that is authoritarian in case you want to comment.

this is not the same as banning them from doing it, which you suggested in a previous post and refer to again in your last paragraph.

To be clear, do you want academics giving advice to government to be banned from speaking about those topics publicly on social or traditional media?

No i dont want them banned and never said that they should be, quite why you are making that leap is beyond me. I said they shouldnt be on twitter or other forms of media not that they should be banned from being on them.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:09 pm

No i dont want them banned and never said that they should be, quite why you are making that leap is beyond me. I said they shouldnt be on twitter or other forms of media not that they should be banned from being on them.

Hang on, they shouldn't be on them but they shouldn't be banned from them? Can you explain what that means?

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:11 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:09 pm

No i dont want them banned and never said that they should be, quite why you are making that leap is beyond me. I said they shouldnt be on twitter or other forms of media not that they should be banned from being on them.

Hang on, they shouldn't be on them but they shouldn't be banned from them? Can you explain what that means?

Don’t know why you bother, the copy ‘n paste king hates the SNP so much that any rational thought goes oot the windae when it comes to anything to do with them.

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:11 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:09 pm

No i dont want them banned and never said that they should be, quite why you are making that leap is beyond me. I said they shouldnt be on twitter or other forms of media not that they should be banned from being on them.

Hang on, they shouldn't be on them but they shouldn't be banned from them? Can you explain what that means?

I wouldn't outlaw as in make it illegal, I just think they if they elect to serve on these committees they should refrain from commenting on overtly political matters.

Is this the way thinking has to be now, if people shouldnt do something we must ban it and i am the one being authoritarian

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:39 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:11 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:09 pm

No i dont want them banned and never said that they should be, quite why you are making that leap is beyond me. I said they shouldnt be on twitter or other forms of media not that they should be banned from being on them.

Hang on, they shouldn't be on them but they shouldn't be banned from them? Can you explain what that means?

I wouldn't outlaw as in make it illegal, I just think they if they elect to serve on these committees they should refrain from commenting on overtly political matters.

Is this the way thinking has to be now, if people shouldnt do something we must ban it and i am the one being authoritarian

Still not clear. ‘Shouldn’t’ makes it sound voluntary, I.e. it’s guidance. Or is it you absolutely can’t and if they do they’re not advisors anymore?

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:57 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:39 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:11 pm

Hang on, they shouldn't be on them but they shouldn't be banned from them? Can you explain what that means?

I wouldn't outlaw as in make it illegal, I just think they if they elect to serve on these committees they should refrain from commenting on overtly political matters.

Is this the way thinking has to be now, if people shouldnt do something we must ban it and i am the one being authoritarian

Still not clear. ‘Shouldn’t’ makes it sound voluntary, I.e. it’s guidance. Or is it you absolutely can’t and if they do they’re not advisors anymore?

Wow, really have to spell it out, yes voluntary as in guidance.

A couple of businesses in Edinburgh had a court case today against Edinburgh being in tier 3 - the final decision has not been announced as far as i can see

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/ed ... 72iIia4zwg

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:08 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:57 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:39 pm

I wouldn't outlaw as in make it illegal, I just think they if they elect to serve on these committees they should refrain from commenting on overtly political matters.

Is this the way thinking has to be now, if people shouldnt do something we must ban it and i am the one being authoritarian

Still not clear. ‘Shouldn’t’ makes it sound voluntary, I.e. it’s guidance. Or is it you absolutely can’t and if they do they’re not advisors anymore?

Wow, really have to spell it out, yes voluntary as in guidance.

Like I said, never going to work. You can ask them not to, but if they want to, they will.

westport wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:36 pm A couple of businesses in Edinburgh had a court case today against Edinburgh being in tier 3 - the final decision has not been announced as far as i can see

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/ed ... 72iIia4zwg

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55279911

Covid: Court rejects challenge to Edinburgh level decision

The decision to keep Edinburgh under level three Covid restrictions is lawful, Scotland's highest civil court has ruled.

On Friday a judge decided the Scottish government had a right to consider factors other than data.

In his judgment, Lord Ericht said: "The guidance as to how the government will go about its decision-making has always emphasised that the indicators are no more than indicators - they are not the sole criteria for making a decision on Covid levels."

And all on a day that Edinburgh recorded the highest single number of new cases since the 21st of October

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:56 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:08 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:57 pm

Still not clear. ‘Shouldn’t’ makes it sound voluntary, I.e. it’s guidance. Or is it you absolutely can’t and if they do they’re not advisors anymore?

Wow, really have to spell it out, yes voluntary as in guidance.

Like I said, never going to work. You can ask them not to, but if they want to, they will.

Any perceived punishment, constraint or even 'voluntary guidance' can be used to control individuals and their role they play as independent experts advising our Gov. For some the access and free use of social media is crucial to them, their income and the role they play. Just look at the control over the internet exercised by the authoritarian countries like China, North Korea, etc, they dont do that to stop them enjoying themselves, they use it as a way to control. Look at the Trumps attack on Tik Tok, etc. Constraining experts who provide expert advice to a Gov, be it by limiting access to social media, taking income away, stopping them appearing on tv, etc is a very slippery slope and does take you into an authoritarian scenario.

Sometimes it is better to throw away the shovel!

dpedin wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 12:11 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:56 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:08 pm

Wow, really have to spell it out, yes voluntary as in guidance.

Like I said, never going to work. You can ask them not to, but if they want to, they will.

Any perceived punishment, constraint or even 'voluntary guidance' can be used to control individuals and their role they play as independent experts advising our Gov. For some the access and free use of social media is crucial to them, their income and the role they play. Just look at the control over the internet exercised by the authoritarian countries like China, North Korea, etc, they dont do that to stop them enjoying themselves, they use it as a way to control. Look at the Trumps attack on Tik Tok, etc. Constraining experts who provide expert advice to a Gov, be it by limiting access to social media, taking income away, stopping them appearing on tv, etc is a very slippery slope and does take you into an authoritarian scenario.

Sometimes it is better to throw away the shovel!

Yeah you should try it

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:08 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:57 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 5:39 pm

I wouldn't outlaw as in make it illegal, I just think they if they elect to serve on these committees they should refrain from commenting on overtly political matters.

Is this the way thinking has to be now, if people shouldnt do something we must ban it and i am the one being authoritarian

Still not clear. ‘Shouldn’t’ makes it sound voluntary, I.e. it’s guidance. Or is it you absolutely can’t and if they do they’re not advisors anymore?

Wow, really have to spell it out, yes voluntary as in guidance.

If you're going to proscribe commentary in social media, on Scientific matters for advisors; shouldn't you do the same for Politicians ?

That's the core problem. You can't criticize a scientist for commenting on social media about a scientific matter; if the reason they are doing so; so because a Politician has chosen to drag something that is a matter of science, into being a matter of opinion; & doing so in social media ?

If the Politicians want to discuss scientific matters in science forums; then that's all well & good; but slagging off someones scientific rigor on twitter, invites a response on the same forum.

And the obvious end game is if Politicians really want their economic policies being examined in a; 'scientific' way; on social media; rather than the, political way, they currently enjoy.

It must be a guarantee that Sturgeon is going to revoke the 5 day relaxation over Xmas. Win, win decision. Able to come across as more decisive than Boris and absolve herself of blame come the January wave. That's the sort of situation she will not be able to pass up.

Blackmac wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:16 am It must be a guarantee that Sturgeon is going to revoke the 5 day relaxation over Xmas. Win, win decision. Able to come across as more decisive than Boris and absolve herself of blame come the January wave. That's the sort of situation she will not be able to pass up.

I can certainly see her banning travel across the border in relation to this new virulent strain - even if it does sound a bit madyuppy.

My fingers are crossed.