Cummings on Sage WTF!!!

What the heck would Stan Cummins know about this?
The diminutive forward has no place in politics.
 
It's a bit harsh to include Ben Warner in 'neither are qualified to serve any scientific role'. He does have a PhD in quantum physics and is a professional data scientist.
 
It is the same mentality, the same stupidity, that was behind brexit. Make decisions then listen to the opinions that justify them, ignore those that don’t and spin everything.
 
It's just possible that Cummings is there to provide input on available research funding and how the government could help SAGE members obtain private lab support or other government assistance. Cummings has access to data science - again it's just possible modelers etc might find that useful (especially older modelers).

I would imagine a group of highly experienced PhD's and research scientists could fend off the odd political adviser with a few well chosen technical terms.

There's so much you could be complaining about - for example the incredibly stupid policies toward care homes - rather than this piffling item.
 
br14 said:
It's just possible that Cummings is there to provide input on available research funding and how the government could help SAGE members obtain private lab support or other government assistance. Cummings has access to data science - again it's just possible modelers etc might find that useful (especially older modelers).

I would imagine a group of highly experienced PhD's and research scientists could fend off the odd political adviser with a few well chosen technical terms.

There's so much you could be complaining about - for example the incredibly stupid policies toward care homes - rather than this piffling item.
Click to expand...

it’s not one or the other and this is important because political advisors, while they have attended these meetings before, they have never actually been sat on SAGE itself.

it is an attempt at politicising the scientific advice. How can it be good? If you mess with this process, every decision that follows is going to be potentially flawed.

I’d like to know why you consider this unimportant? It’s probably more important than any actual decision we make from now on.
 
Sir David King, former Chief Scientific Adviser during the foot and mouth outbreak, was on Newsnight tonight. He said the problem wasn’t whether Cummings was an active participant in the meetings or not. He said the problem was who was feeding back what information to the prime minister.

The role of the Chief Scientific Adviser is to chair those meetings and then distill the relevant advice to the prime minister through the COBRA meetings. If there is a alternative route of information to the PM, which may give different weight to potential alternative advice, then it completely undermines the integrity of the process.

And that’s from a former Chief Scientific Adviser.
 
JackG said:
It's a bit harsh to include Ben Warner in 'neither are qualified to serve any scientific role'. He does have a PhD in quantum physics and is a professional data scientist.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but if they required an expert in quantum mechanics surely someone could be found who was less closely connected with Government policy in the interests of clarity.

I’m with Lefty on this and its importance, that information can be passed on at COBRA meetings, political advisors should not be involved with SAGE as it opens the whole process up to policy bias over pure science, it’s like having a trial and one member of the jury is the defendants mother.
 
American_Mary said:
SAGE should be based purely on science, there should be no involvement at that level with politicians or their advisors, that science should then be presented by Vallance & Whitty at COBRA where policy can be decided based on that evidence.

By having Government advisors at that level you are always going to give the impression that policy is driving the science rather than the correct way round, it taints the neutrality of the committee and neither are qualified to serve any scientific role, which begs the obvious question of why are they there if not to assert Government influence on the science that we are intent on following.

It’s a massive faux pas, it beggars belief that they think that they can say they are acting on the scientific advice when the whole time they are having input on it.
Click to expand...

You can just imagine how was going can’t you, Cummins interjecting saying ‘is there anything we can do to protect the economy’

‘Well there is one thing, herd immunity when we look at flu.....

Before he can finish ‘ yep heard enough draw the models up we’ll go with that, and if a few biddies die then so be it’
 
Downing Street say he was involved, "asking questions or offering help", for which you can read 'political advice'.
 
"Mr Cummings and Dr Warner have attended some Sage meetings and listen to some meetings now they are all virtual.
"They do this in order to understand better the scientific debates concerning this emergency and also to understand better the limits of how science and data can help government decisions.
"Occasionally they ask questions or offer help when scientists mention problems in Whitehall."
 
uncle_rico said:
Maybe he was present but not involved?
Click to expand...

So why create the political headache of having him there at all ? At the very best it’s another example of Johnson’s political incompetence.

Evidence suggest is he was involved and that has to undermine the ‘science’ that we have been following, we were told that SAGE was made up politically neutral scientific experts, having Cummings and Warner on board means that there was a political element.
 
uncle_rico said:
:ROFLMAO: Wooooosh
Click to expand...
It involves the group giving timely information to the government, surely sitting in on a meeting in these exceptional circumstances will aid that. I’m not sure why everyone assumes the worst. Rather than both groups going back and forth with questions surely it helps to have reps observing the group and available for answering questions. Will certainly save time in that aspect.
 
FatCat said:
It involves the group giving timely information to the government, surely sitting in on a meeting in these exceptional circumstances will aid that. I’m not sure why everyone assumes the worst. Rather than both groups going back and forth with questions surely it helps to have reps observing the group and available for answering questions. Will certainly save time in that aspect.
Click to expand...
If that was reason, it confirms he shouldn't have been there. The line of communication was from SAGE to Cobra. No wonder Johnson didn't bother going to the first few Cobra meetings, no wonder the government response to this pandemic has been poor from the beginning.
 
FatCat said:
It involves the group giving timely information to the government, surely sitting in on a meeting in these exceptional circumstances will aid that. I’m not sure why everyone assumes the worst. Rather than both groups going back and forth with questions surely it helps to have reps observing the group and available for answering questions. Will certainly save time in that aspect.
Click to expand...

It’s a tiered system, SAGE is purely about the science and the nature of the virus and that data should be collated and agreed with by those present and then the Chairman attends COBRA where policy is decided based on the purely scientific evidence he presents. Like I say it’s like a trial with the defendants mother on the jury, there’s an outside bias that should not he there, and why do people think the worst ??? Look at how many have died and some of the decisions made and you have your answer, by having Cummings and Warner present you potentially taint the science with politics, you can argue for different scenarios to be accepted best or worst case to suit an agenda.
 
American_Mary said:
It’s a tiered system, SAGE is purely about the science and the nature of the virus and that data should be collated and agreed with by those present and then the Chairman attends COBRA where policy is decided based on the purely scientific evidence he presents. Like I say it’s like a trial with the defendants mother on the jury, there’s an outside bias that should not he there, and why do people think the worst ??? Look at how many have died and some of the decisions made and you have your answer, by having Cummings and Warner present you potentially taint the science with politics, you can argue for different scenarios to be accepted best or worst case to suit an agenda.
Click to expand...
I get that but you wouldhave to assume that they are actively involved and making decisions not just observers, either way it’s not ideal but I’m not so sure it’s as dramatic as people are making out on here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top