Selfish people on bus

[70smusic]

I don’t own a car and today needed to take the bus for an essential journey. I was really shocked to see that of the 8 or so people on the bus, 5 weren’t wearing masks properly. 3 people had them covering the mouth only with their noses exposed, 1 person pulled theirs down to chat on the phone and another had theirs around their neck. I’m assuming all these people are able to wear masks and weren’t exempt as they did have them on - they just weren’t wearing them properly.

I just don’t understand what goes through these people’s minds - do they not care about putting others at risk? It just seems so selfish and ignorant. I got off the bus feeling really panicky that they could have put me (and therefore my family) at risk. I’m not worried about myself but do worry about giving the virus to others (including my DC). I despair

Who cares?

I just can’t get over the fact that you made this comparison in the first place.

Do you really think questioning lockdowns as a universal pandemic strategy is on par with claiming the the earth is 6000 years old? That the only scientists who are credible and right are the ones who happen to agree with the government response?

It’s so weirdly black and white for such a complex issue as a global pandemic, that there is only One True Way, and any professionals who question it are wrong.

Ironically, this is anti-scientific thinking.

All vulnerable people have been vaccinated ?? It's just healthy adults left to get done
So how are you at risk ?

I just can’t get over the fact that you made this comparison in the first place.

Because you were trying to argue that the existence of a list of scientists who signed up to something gave it credibility.

So how DO you determine which scientists are credible regarding this issue of the pandemic, specifically?

And if your answer is just a variation of “A credible scientist is one who agrees with the other credible scientists” then don’t bother.

@nitsandwormsdodger

All vulnerable people have been vaccinated ?? It's just healthy adults left to get done So how are you at risk ?

Because vaccination isn't the only risk mitigation that is still in place. Vaccination is an important factor but not a silver bullet in itself.

@osbertthesyrianhamster
Can't wait to see the end of masks. They're pointless
Wise hamster! Totally agree!
Unfortunately so many people have less intelligence than hamsters. ☹️

Wasn't there a cluster of positive cases in London and the people over 11 are asked to get tested? I don't think it's as simple as you can just forget about restriction because you are fed up, not just yet. And I do dread the people who don't care about others but I won't argue with them because I know I can't change their mind. But I do hope it doesn't end up that we have to have another lockdown just because people can't take simple precautions in early days.

@Terracotta9

Frankly, I feel that if you drill down, the answer is probably something along the lines of “a proper scientist is a scientist who agrees with the other proper scientists”, which is recursive nonsense, of course

Is it though? If a scientist fails to present evidence to convince enough other scientists then they’re presenting bad science. Rightly or wrongly I automatically make a judgement when individual scientists and doctors and/or groups refer to themselves voluntarily as unheard or a marginalised. It suggests that their proposals just don’t stand up to scrutiny. I think we can all find historical cases where this hasn’t been true but there’s no real comparison of the numbers of dangerous outliers that rightly ended up consigned to the dump because they were just wrong. Those that were unfairly initially judged provide enough correct to prove themselves and don’t really need to engage in confrontational tactics or rhetoric.

Plus I’m conscious that there’s a financial incentive in being a contrary or conspiratorial professional in some quarters.

I think it’s understandable that the GBD went quiet because it was about not relying on lockdowns until a vaccine became available, but by November it was clear we would have several vaccines being rolled out shortly

I don’t think that debate is over though. I’ve come across articles and letters pushing for countries to promise to never have a lockdown again and wanting retrospective reviews (which is fair enough). I have a link you may be interested in, I won’t post it here myself because I don’t support it at all and don’t wish to be responsible for leaving a trace of it here on MN, but let me know if you’d like me to PM you.

In truth I don’t know how I feel about lockdowns ever being used again in comparable circumstances. Economically I don’t believe it’s really a possibility unless absolutely necessary at which point there’s not likely to be time for a massive debate about it. I don’t think lockdowns on this scale would have been possible at any other time in history and I’m not completely sold either way on whether it’s something that should ever be employed again.

Btw, cornettoninja, I’ve enjoyed reading your comments on this board, it’s clear you’re someone who can see both sides of any issue, and I feels that is a rare trait

That’s very kind of you but I’ve definitely had my moments on here

[quote TeddingtonTrashbag]@osbertthesyrianhamster
Can't wait to see the end of masks. They're pointless
Wise hamster! Totally agree!
Unfortunately so many people have less intelligence than hamsters. ☹️[/quote]
And so many claim to be knowledgeable enough to make that assessment when they aren't.
I doubt if many of us like masks but they're still part of the measures for a reason.

So how DO you determine which scientists are credible regarding this issue of the pandemic, specifically?

Well the antivaxxing covid-deniers definitely are off the credible list. That includes that HART founder.

There's a whole bunch of anti-lockdown groups who manage to destroy their credibility for themselves in the nonsense they post. Generally I have no time for anyone who is not only anti-lockdown, but also anti vaccine, anti mask, anti social distancing, anti border control, anti anything that isn't a complete removal of all covid restrictions. It implies a political agenda rather than a scientific one.

@Cornettoninja
Is it though? If a scientist fails to present evidence to convince enough other scientists then they’re presenting bad science

Ah yes, like the “bad science” that got Galileo thrown in prison.

Consensus is tricky in science, as even when scientists agree broadly, for instance - that climate change is real- they’ll often disagree on the details, like causes, timing, magnitude, reversibility etc in the case of climate change

In the case of scientists disagreeing about the best response to a global pandemic, this is also largely about the details.

But why should we expect them all to agree on every last detail regarding something as big and complex as a pandemic? It’s unrealistic to expect this, and it actually makes me wonder if people have even spent any time around actual scientists. Science tends to be a dialogue, with the occasional spat in between.

It’s really bizarre to see people claiming that there is only one True Scientific Opinion regarding the pandemic (which happens to agree with the government response) and anything else is quackery. That position just doesn’t reflect the reality of how science actually works in practice.

I’d certainly be interested in reading the link you have.

@noblegiraffe

You’ve told me what positions you ignore automatically, but you haven’t answered my question. What determines a credible scientist when it comes to the pandemic?

(Without recursive nonsense like “a credible scientist is a scientist who agrees with the other credible scientists”)

What determines a credible scientist when it comes to the pandemic?

Well for me it would be one who makes a logical and coherent argument based on clear data which is provided and which makes sense and who amends their position based on the current situation. I don't 'follow' scientists though, rather arguments and data.

Well for me it would be one who makes a logical and coherent argument based on clear data which is provided and which makes sense and who amends their position based on the current situation. I don't 'follow' scientists though, rather arguments and data

So you really think that none of the scientists who may disagree with elements of the pandemic response can present a logical and coherent argument based on data and amendments?

Note, I’m not asking if you agree with them, I’m asking if you really think every single scientist who disagrees with the governments pandemic response is illogical and incoherent?

Ah yes, like the “bad science” that got Galileo thrown in prison or any poor bugger who believed in germ theory before the 20th century. They’re generally the exceptions to the rule though, there are plenty of alchemists littering history as complete failures.

I’ve PM’d you, I had a quick glance over it again and feel I should point out it’s more of a legal/political take on lockdowns over covid rather than scientific/medical.

So you really think that none of the scientists who may disagree with elements of the pandemic response can present a logical and coherent argument based on data and amendments?

I never said that. I don't think the HART group do that though. I think they have a political agenda, along with the other shady interest groups they hang out with.

And besides, Terracotta, I've disagreed quite vociferously(!) with elements of the government pandemic response.

I've had my first jab. I do lateral flow tests twice a week. I don't have Covid. I still wear a mask in supermarkets and all other shops, now, because I wear breathable cotton ones which match my clothes and they don't really bother me. However, I'm sick to death of this whole thing and, I must admit, I can't be arsed with social distancing anymore, and neither do most people round here. DS has gone off tonight to meet some friends at an outdoor pub, and I was more worried about him being cold than catching Covid.

I know nothing about science but I know I don't trust those who use emotional blackmail

@noblegiraffe

So you really think that none of the scientists who may disagree with elements of the pandemic response can present a logical and coherent argument based on data and amendments?

I never said that. I don't think the HART group do that though. I think they have a political agenda, along with the other shady interest groups they hang out with.

What groups are they associated with? I agree it’s quite informative to find out whose company they keep and who their appeal is to.

@Terracotta9

So how DO you determine which scientists are credible regarding this issue of the pandemic, specifically?

And if your answer is just a variation of “A credible scientist is one who agrees with the other credible scientists” then don’t bother.

Not the PP but thought I'd throw in my 2 cents to this. I'm an epidemiologist at a UK institute and have met my share of both excellent and not so excellent scientists.

A credible scientist who can contribute productively to the discussion will...

• Discuss both sides of the argument - all credible scientists will acknowledge there are pros and cons to specific pandemic restrictions

-Acknowledge uncertainty

• Have a history of recent publications, grants etc that have been awarded in a relevant area
• Be affiliated to a research institute - ideally heading an active lab group.
• Most importantly, have expertise in the area in which they're discussing and shut up when they're out of their depth.

A dr or professor title doesn't mean you're an expert in the entire field. I'm an epidemiologist but not a specialist in infectious disease modelling therefore I wouldn't write an opinion piece on transmission in MSM or anything similar.

There are many many scientists (e.g., Karol Sikora) who disagree with lockdown policies and have been given opportunities to discuss this in the media and been extremely vocal about it. There's good reason that other scientists who aren't credible aren't given space to do this.

Thanks @oldegg123

That’s a good list of criteria.

... and shut up when they're out of their depth

Thankfully not a requirement on MN otherwise I’d have to keep my trap shut

What groups are they associated with?

Us4Them, the fake grassroots parent organisation who work with the Tory Covid Recovery Group, one of their leaders apparently also works for HART. HART seemingly also share an IP address with the dodgy PCRClaims lot.

twitter.com/usengland/status/1348264360100196353?s=21

bylinetimes.com/2021/04/01/disinformation-lobbyists-and-brexit-business-bosses-finance-conservative-covid-sceptics-pr/

I am fed up with masks, queues and rules and everything but I do understand that we are not out of the woods yet. Yes there are vaccines but the main one here AZ is not as effective against the South African variant. We have surge testing for this strain but they are playing whack a mole trying to make sure they keep on top of it. I suspect the government are pretty worried judging by Boris's comments today. If masks are a small price to pay to have some normality while the vaccines are rolled out and until we are sure that the variants are no threat than so be it.