Or should we see 'other' science on the news

[Yolo2]

Mainly watch BBC news. Plenty of footage of nurses crying and constant re-telling of the daily figures. I'm a huge fan of the BBC but disappointed at their Coronavirus coverage. Why are we not seeing any scientific debate or discussion whatsoever? A professor at Oxford University thinks the virus might be firmly established in the population and much more widespread than government scientists believe. A professor at King's College London says the virus has most likely been in UK since January at the earliest and a huge amount of people reported Covid symptoms just after NY. Sweden's own top epedimologist has taken a completely opposing view on lockdown and has criticised the UK's approach. These are all experts in their fields with views which are hugely significant to the shocking and unprecedented situation we have found ourselves in. Before people say 'oh these people are wrong and anyone who leaves their house except to buy bread and rice should be jailed' etc etc.. the media's job is to report on this without bias and present a range of views. The fact that stuff like this is barely reported or debated suggests the media are towing the government line and terrified to do anything which might make people have any independent thought as to whether the lockdown and its continuation are a good idea.

Sweden's own top epedimologist has taken a completely opposing view on lockdown and has criticised the UK's approach.

Whilst ignoring the criticism he’s getting from experts within Sweden and other Scandinavian countries.

I’m not sure Sweden’s top epidemiologist understands the English. Their policy is based on a high level of compliance with voluntary guidelines. We tried that for about a week before lockdown and it didn’t work.

which might make people have any independent thought as to whether the lockdown and its continuation are a good idea.

You mean encourage more armchair epidemiologists? Armed with hindsight and blissfully unaware of the reason for a lockdown in the first place? Yes we need more of those. There should be a special sub section just for them. Or maybe a sound proofed cellar.

Do we really need to hear one more time that "we should just let everyone catch it and get over it" or that "lockdown can't go on forever" like that's a bit of secret information their research has turned up.

Isn't it the case that those who ARE qualified to research it already have access to all the information? Surely serious researchers don't rely on the pages of the Daily Express or The Sun?

Those against the news giving more airtime to other scientific views - that's because you are assuming they are somehow dangerous or wrong. We don't even know who SAGE is and yet you all think its views should be singularly broadcast and without any challenge! Of course, in a democracy with a free media where the entire population is locked in their homes in indefinitely, showing other scientific views is the right thing to do. And how do you know the 'other' view is a minority. Lots of scientists may disagree. People are such sheep. Yes, stick to rules of lockdown but if you think people can't be 'trusted' with the full facts or spectrum of views, we may as well just stop voting! The BBC showing crying nurses and daily death stories every night is ridiculous. I honestly think some people are getting off on the emotion of it all and enjoying a superior feeling of calling everyone who doesn't mindlessly swallow everything that's going on without question as 'irresponsible' . I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything like that, and I'm following all the rules of lockdown perfectly. But I honestly think people need to wake up and realise the Government's view is not the only one and not necessarily the right one. And we as the public, locked in our homes without any view on what the plan is, have the right to know what science thinks and what views are out there from esteemed people at the top of their profession who may differ from those on SAGE.

OP

The scientist who said the 2m social distancing was based on nothing actually is on SAGE.

I posted a link earlier but just got back from a run and must eat.

I bet many of SAGE have different opinions.

Ah here it is...

uk.news.yahoo.com/coronavirus-social-distancing-lockdown-scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-180826409.html

I honestly think people need to wake up and realise the Government's view is not the only one and not necessarily the right one.

The government haven't really presented any scientific view though. They keep saying they will be "guided by the science" without actually saying what the science is that they are following.

Anyone who is capable of giving critical thought to a range of scientific viewpoints is also capable of researching that for themselves. I agree with PP that the daily news is not really the right forum.

@DippyAvocado Yes 'THE science'. There isn't just one view though. And if not the news, perhaps shows like Newsnight. Although I don't see why a story saying, a leading scientiet has claimed the government's strategy is questionable and claims Coronavirus has circulated for far longer than previously thought' is not news. I don't think what IS on the news is news . People crying and saying, please stay at home, I'm a nurse. That's not news. It's a hysterical form of broadcasting. It's certainly not journalism to show that every night. It's like social media presented as 'news.' Instead of that, broadcast people who have the credentials to speak to the whole issue.

“ I don't think what IS on the news is news”

Agree.

BBC is bias. I couldnt believe covid was getting little coverage in late Jan - Feb. Sky has been a bit better with wider outlook but they do seem to repeat themselves on a loop.

Science isn't magic. All our decisions about the virus rest on assumptions and estimates as this is a new virus. (We were not able to get the Time Travel/Hindsight machine working unfortunately so we can only work with what we know.)

So a report might say "IF as estimated (Q) people have been exposed and IF the infection rate is (X) then (Y) will be infected on date (Z).

Depending on the Values of Q, X, Y you will get different values for Z.
That doesn't mean one is better/worse science.

There was one such report a while back which started by assuming that the UK had hardly any ICU beds. That meant it gave different and more exciting figures and was therefore popular for quoting.

It was different but it had no value because of the incorrect parameters.

Insisting that every such opinion has equal airtime is pointless though no one is preventing it and people ARE discussing it as that is how we all know about it.

The elected government has picked a team of scientists and is feeding them data and they in turn are producing estimates and recommendations. I'm sure there are lots of youtubers who'd like a say and a seat at that table, but that's not how democracy works.

I agree Op. There are different opinions and theories amongst the scientific community. There is no one right way to do it. I am interested to hear what different scientists have to say but you have to dig a bit.

@LastTrainEast who is talking about YouTubers? We are taking about esteemed professors working in science. You are missing the point. For a start, you are talking only about modelling - that is also a huge critique by some scientists who say we are relying too much on modelling and not enough on hard science.

The media of this county should be highlighting that the science may be wrong. That top scientists take different views. We are in our homes, for an indefinite period, with all of the consequences that entails because of the reports from SAGE. We don't know who is on SAGE and we don't know what science they are working from (e.g. recent article about the 2m rule being arbitrary) Are you seriously saying this and the opposing views ought not to be given far more airtime? You have to dig around to know what a number of top scientists think. It's not on the BBC news. I think a lot of people's views on this depend on how much they value understanding and critiquing what is going on or whether they are just passively accepting it.. I don't know what sort of educated people would wish to remain pretty much in the dark about what experts think and whether this whole strategy is right. Some are happy just to listen to the vague explanations we are being given, without any probing or understanding as to whether the view being taken by the government is the right one. Their view they tell us, is based on 'the science.' Well, let's talk about 'the science.' Who holds government to account and prompts national discussion? The media. So why aren't they doing this?

Or you could just baa like a sheep and say "it's what the government scientists say so must be right. No point hearing anything else" Baa!

Or you could just baa like a sheep and say "it's what the government scientists say so must be right.

This exactly. Why are so many people so accepting and unquestioning despite so many historical examples of those in authority getting things wrong time after time?

@JaniceBattersby

Have you heard about this?

The second vitamin D3 blood serum study in the world has been published yesterday.
It was a study of 780 Indonesian covid patients.

These are the conclusions of the study:
• Majority of the COVID-19 cases with insufficient and deficient Vitamin D status died.
• The odds of death was higher in older and male cases with pre-existing condition and below normal Vitamin D levels.
• When controlling for age, sex, and comorbidity, Vitamin D status is strongly associated with COVID-19 mortality.

When compared to cases with normal Vitamin D status, death was approximately 10.12 times more likely for Vitamin D deficient cases (OR=10.12; p

The problem is that all the experts in their fields, you have mentioned above OP, have at the moment is anecdotal evidence not empirical evidence which is what is needed. It’s a constantly changing landscape which scientists have to react to when normally they get time and data to research. The best we can hope for is that scientists in the future use this data now to help any new pandemic we or our children’s children might face.

I see what you're saying but there's a time and a place. On a BBC2 documentary like Horizon, yes you have the option for spending an hour looking at theories, debating and working out whether one is "best". Because you know the majority of the people watching are interested in science and know the basics like what a hypothesis is.

On the main news bulletins you have 5 minutes tops. You know a lot of people watching aren't that bright, or perhaps don't speak English as their first language. You have to get the story across as quickly and simply as you can. No space for debate or opposing views. And yes, that means sticking to the government line of "stay at home to protect the NHS" as it's a very straightforward message. Giving out other messages or allowing other scientists to have their say on the 6 o'clock news - especially scientists who think it's all a hoax, or have some other take on it - dilutes the message.

We don't know who is on SAGE

I know someone who is on SAGE... I wasn't aware it was all secret squirrel.

@PineappleDanish so basically we just go for dumbing down? That's insane! Let's lower the news to the standard of the lowest common denominator....madness. So our 'betters' just feed us info like a teacher explaining something complex to a 5 year old. That's not how humanity progresses. Perhaps we should just broadcast TOWIE instead and get the people there to tell people to stay at home and save lives. No point telling the masses why. Too stupid to understand.

And yes, the fulls details of who is on SAGE are sketchy and it's apparently it's for security reasons. Some of those on it have said, we have no problem with the public knowing we are on it. Some names are known but the government refusing to give much detail. Why not publish the minutes of the meetings?

I would encourage you to take some pride in your own individual right to understand if the extreme changes being imposed on us now and for a long time to come are based on scientific consensus - and not just mindlessly follow the herd way of thinking. And the 'scientists' who think it's a 'hoax.'? I don't think we are talking about the same level of debate here. We are talking about professors from top universities in this country who are questioning the government's approach.

With you OP.

@Yolo2

If you're scientifically literate just read the research papers. It's not difficult! I suspect that you don't have the background to even begin to make a discerning judgement on the science and that is why it isn't presented on the news. There simply isn't time on the news to present every fringe theory when the general public doesn't have the statistical or scientific knowledge to interpret them or distinguish between a fringe theory and what os mainstream widely accepted scioence. (Actually if you bother to read the publish papers you're describing in your OP even the authors include huge errors on the results you're blithely quoting completely out of context. The author themself actually pointed out that the extreme ends of the error bounds was highly unlikely to reflect reality).

Tories have form on being guided by 'the science.'

Badger Cull, anyone?

While it's obviously stupid to present all the scientific evidence to the public and expect them to interpret it in any sensible way there is an argument that the Tories are hiding behind "the science" in their policy making. There isn't a single scientists which can make a judgement on the myriad of different factors which all need to be considered.

An epidemeologist can give you the possible outcomes in terms of infection rates (and give estimates on how likely each is with current knowledge). An NHS expert can give you a guide about what our hospitals can cope with and what we'll be sacrificing in terms of other care in order to cope. An educational expert can advise on the affects of discontinuity in terms of educaion. All kinds of other people can estimate impacts on domestic violence, food security, economic impact etc. The government clearly needs to consider all of these impacts - decide which negative effects must be prioritised in the short term and which can be best mitigated. To say we being guided by 'the science' neglects the nuanced approach which must be taken factoring in all of these issues. There is no big scientist who is an expert in all of these things at once.

@WhyCantIThinkOfAGoodOne eh what would you know about my ability to understand any of this? I'm a well- educated person and am disappointed in the news for broadcasting attention-seeking nurses crying on self-filmed videos, instead of engaging academics to critically assess the mess the country/ world is in. You seem to think I think there is some other "right" answer. That's not the case. The news is there to educate and inform and it's not doing that. We should be able to hear what esteemed scientists are saying on this. Can't see how anyone could oppose this without being extremely robotic and narrow minded. I'm not suggesting Fiona Bruce sits and presents "fringe" viewpoints on the news. I'm suggesting in depth news coverage could explore the scientific views on this situation - which is, by its very nature, a matter of science. Yes, you can read the literature but I think the public deserve (and need) better than what we are getting. I haven't quoted anything blithely out of context. And remember, the science we are following as a matter of policy also has extreme margins of error. Why would anyone be so annoyed at someone suggesting the news needs to dig further and shed more light? We need more people with critical thinking skills. I worry for those who are so easily happy with whatever is presented to them and require no further deep thought on the matter. I personally value my own consciousness more. How do you know what is "widely accepted, mainstream" science? When Brexit was being discussed all the time, we heard plenty of details and expert opinions. On this issue, we hear nothing. And you are happy with that and think I'm foolish for wanting more. I despair, I really do.

@Yolo2 being well educated does not in any way shape or form make you remotely capable of essentially conducting a peer review on published articles. If you were scientifically literatein a relevant field you would simply read the papers yourself. If not then you'll be presented with the current scientific consensus. The news can't possibly keep you informed about every single piece of scientific speculation and every tentative suggestion made by every scientist. Every mainstream result has been available to read about in the news.

You may think very highly of your critical thinking skills but without any expertise your opinion will be of almost no value compared to those who are actually able to interpret the science professionally. You're welcome to read the literature and have an opinion but clearly the news isn't going to waste a huge amount of effort trying to explain complex numerical modelling to people who for the most part can't solve a basic differential equation or understand a simple linear regression. We don't need the general public to apply their critical thinking skills to these questions because their input is useless.

If you're talking about moral questions then yes I do agree the publis should be better informed about the decisions which are being made.