Skip to main content

Whose message on COVID-19?

During this Coronavirus pandemic, We often hear it said that we should 'follow the science'.  That, of course, is better than simply dipping your finger in the air to test the humidity!  But can the science work fast enough to inform debate when it comes to the difficult decisions to be made by politicians? 

The answer is that it cannot.  




The problem is that science works through a long process of experimentation or data acquisition, writing of papers, which then go through a peer review before being published. Cutting short any of this process weakens the strength of the science. 

With the Covid-19 pandemic, events are occurring faster than science can function. What then happens is mostly speculation based on judgement, whether by specialists or not. Epidemiologists, virologists etc. are called upon to give their view on what is likely to happen. Few of them stress the problem that science doesn't work that way. 

We all either feel in the dark, or that the government isn't giving us sufficient information, or we simply choose which particular strain of idea is trending. So we end up with assertions ranging from 'it isn't as bad as they say it is' or 'there is a conspiracy' to 'millions will die'.

I don't find the information available from any government source here in the UK to be particularly useful. That may be true across the globe.

So where do we get our information from?  Sadly, many are getting information from a source that is a little better than rumour and hearsay - social media. 

 It would be advisable for governments to think through how they handle the dissemination of information in such circumstances.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services.

It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared.

Utilitarian ethics considers the balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …