"Hopium"

[ontana]

Disclaimer: fully jabbed, masked wearing compliant person here, but also a teacher and a parent who has witnessed the devastating effects of lockdowns on young people in particular.

I have noticed the likes of Christina Pagel and Deepti Gurdasani on Twitter using the word "hopium" to describe anyone who is mildly optimistic that omicron might be a milder variant or that we are not in as bad a situation as we might otherwise be without vaccines or compared to last year, and I think the use of this word captures why I find them so awful.

Hope is a fundamental part of the human condition it seems to me, and to deride it as "hopium" just seems contemptuous and joyless. If they have read Emily Disckinson, or Barack Obama, or St Paul, surely they would understand the need for hope, even in the most dire of circumstances? But there seems to be a determination amongst some to deny any sense of hope that we may be seeing some light at the end of the tunnel and in stead they seem to delight in the misery and fear of it all.

Is it just me??

I think there certainly are some people who are using socially vulnerable children as a pretext to support another agenda (not saying that this applies to individual posters)

There were a lot of cuts 2010-2020 to support for vulnerable families, and this didn't seem to be an issue that inspired people to change how they voted, for example.

Right now, I would rather we were able to avoid school closures and lockdown if we can, though it's not clear that it will be possible to stop at least some parts of some schools closing at least part of the time.

It would be great if there is more of an impetus to help vulnerable families going forward, don't you think?

@waltzingparrot

Don't scientists only operate with facts and evidence.

Facts and evidence can be interpreted in very different ways, even by experts. Look at all the 'Twitter wars' between highly qualified scientists as one example.

"Scientists" aren't machines. They are people with their own biases, agendas and emotions. That's why we have peer review, blind testing and the scientific method.

And that's why having groups like Indie Sage is so useful; they put a lot of information in the public domain to be discussed which is great.

@ontana

They are experts in terms of some aspects of healthcare. They aren't experts in terms of education, social isolation, child development, mental well-being, economics and the billion other aspects of life which are adversely affected by the lockdowns they are clamouring for.

Indeed they are not, although tbf iSAGE aren't the only ones for whom that can be said.

@herecomesthsun

And that's why having groups like Indie Sage is so useful; they put a lot of information in the public domain to be discussed which is great.

Provided one is aware that they're not at all 'Indie', but simply a self-appointed group of individuals who share a similar outlook and gave themselves a fancy pseudo official title, I guess it's fine.

I don't know, looking into their qualifications and experience, I've been very impressed. Including experts on child health / behavioural science / medicine / stats, who are generally professor status at some very good establishments etc.

@herecomesthsun

I don't know, looking into their qualifications and experience, I've been very impressed. Including experts on child health / behavioural science / medicine / stats, who are generally professor status at some very good establishments etc.

I don't doubt most if not all of them are highly qualified in their fields.

However, so are many others, and they haven't chosen to join a group with a pretentious title, 'calling for' and 'urging' this or that.

"However, so are many others, and they haven't chosen to join a group with a pretentious title, 'calling for' and 'urging' this or that."

The point is that you will get a much more balanced, nuanced view from a group of professionals of different disciplines. Just like healthcare professionals use multi-disciplinary teams to determine the best care plan for a patient, groups like Indie SAGE draw on multiple fields of expertise to look at different aspects of the pandemic.

That's always going to be more considered and balanced than one single person's viewpoint, whether you agree with them or not.

I think the point was that, at least initially, the scientists advising the Government, especially the CMOs, were very constrained by their roles. There were political considerations to what they could openly say. I don't think the CMOs can be seen publically to criticise the Government.

We have a problem in the UK with distrust of intellectuals and we have a problem with STEM education. I was absolutely delighted that Indie Sage was upping the communal game with a thoughtful and reflective take on the science of the pandemic. even when I didn't agree 100% with all the conclusions.

I don’t think they should have called themselves Indy sage. It implies they are independent thinkers ( presumably of the official sage) and some sort of official group when imo they are not “independent” at all. They have their own agenda and their own biases and select the science that suits them just like other self appointed commentators do. It is confusing to use “independent” I think ( and Sage?)
A better name could have been Alternative Sage or Another viewpoint Sage or just not to use the word Sage at all.
Then we would be clear on what they are saying and where they are coming from and could take or leave what they say. I’m glad they exist to give their viewpoints to add to the debate however ( although I personally mostly ignore them now)

@sashagabadon

I don’t think they should have called themselves Indy sage. It implies they are independent thinkers ( presumably of the official sage) and some sort of official group when imo they are not “independent” at all. They have their own agenda and their own biases and select the science that suits them just like other self appointed commentators do. It is confusing to use “independent” I think ( and Sage?) A better name could have been Alternative Sage or Another viewpoint Sage or just not to use the word Sage at all. Then we would be clear on what they are saying and where they are coming from and could take or leave what they say. I’m glad they exist to give their viewpoints to add to the debate however ( although I personally mostly ignore them now)

That's how I feel too.

Their choice of name deliberately seeks to imply that they have some sort of official role, when they are simply a self-appointed group who don't advise the govt at all.

Plus, as you say, they are not at all 'indie' and, while they may indeed be highly qualified, they filter everything through the biases they hold as a group.

Ah, I think "independent" conveys that just as well as "alternative"?

@herecomesthsun

Ah, I think "independent" conveys that just as well as "alternative"?

But if they aren't in fact advising the govt, why use the title of an official group at all? Imagine "Indie MI5."

@ontana

I find the idea that anyone who is against school closures and lockdown is "suddenly pretending to care about children/the vulnerable" as you are implying, to be insidious and unfair. I have been a teacher for 14 years, worked in school throughout lockdown and and also support vulnerable people through other voluntary work. I can do this and simultaneously disagree with Christina Pagel.

Agree with this. And I am also a teacher.

Well Sage means wise

The acronym is Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. And Indie Sage are providing scientific information and advice in an emergency, so it's fairly clear what they are doing.

If their aim was to be like Sage, but not to be constrained by having to please civil servants with their public comments, then their name sums up what they're doing rather well doesn't it?

Choosing another acronym would have been more confusing for people.

Independent implies free of bias though. It does to me. It also implies not affiliated to anything political which is not the case.
Anyway now I think about it, I don’t think they should have used Sage at all. They got a lot of airtime back in 2020 as though they were an official group. I thought they were for a while. They seem to get less airtime now as people are wiser and have alternative commentators to use.
Anyway on balance I think they are a good thing as long as everyone is clear on their politics (like we would be with say a “think tank “ commenting on other mattters eg. Tax Payers Alliance commenting on say a tax rise- we can listen to their opinion but we listen whilst all know they hate paying taxes!)

I don't think they are tied to a particular political party though?

These are probable signs that someone is on a slippery slope to hopium addiction

"It's only the flu'
'It isn't airborne dont be ridiculous'
'Long covid is all in the mind'
'It has no long term effects'
'You can't catch it twice or its rare to'
'Spanish flu only lasted two years, so coronavirus will too'
'This is mild'
'It will always mutate to become milder'
'It is just a cold'
'Stop scaremongering!'

@sashagabadon

Independent implies free of bias though. It does to me. It also implies not affiliated to anything political which is not the case. Anyway now I think about it, I don’t think they should have used Sage at all. They got a lot of airtime back in 2020 as though they were an official group. I thought they were for a while. They seem to get less airtime now as people are wiser and have alternative commentators to use. Anyway on balance I think they are a good thing as long as everyone is clear on their politics (like we would be with say a “think tank “ commenting on other mattters eg. Tax Payers Alliance commenting on say a tax rise- we can listen to their opinion but we listen whilst all know they hate paying taxes!)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that they came up with a really good idea - and a good name- at a time of national crisis, and did a lot of good by encouraging informed scientific discussion.

It was very helpful - in my opinion - to have a group of professors engaging together in an informed discussion like that. Very public spirited.

We can agree to disagree about that one.

The acronym is Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. And Indie Sage are providing scientific information and advice in an emergency, so it's fairly clear what they are doing.

But who asked them to provide 'advice'?

If their aim was to be like Sage, but not to be constrained by having to please civil servants with their public comments, then their name sums up what they're doing rather well doesn't it?

But who are they 'advising'? Any govt advisory group is going to be "constrained by having to please civil servants with their public comments" because it's not their job to make policy, but to advise. Whereas the self-appointed 'Indy' Sage's aims seem to be the opposite, to publicly go against govt policy.

Choosing another acronym would have been more confusing for people.

Why? They're an entirely unofficial group. Why give themselves pseudo official title at all?

I don’t mean officially, I just mean in their outlook. We are all political in one way or another and that’s fine but it’s just good practice imo to not pretend otherwise. Just my opinion from what I have observed over the last 18 months or so. And not just them, there are plenty on all sides of the arguments.
But say another group “lockdown Sceptics” are open about their view. It’s in the name, they are lock down sceptics and so we can read and listen to them clearly knowing they hate lockdowns and look at things through that prism.

Happy to agree to disagree Here

I find it odd that people expected me to routinely mention that I thought ending education for a generation of children would be harmful for them pre 2020! I mean I promise I have always thought this before but since you know it was never something routinely suggested before I never mentioned my opposition to it! That doesn’t mean it wasn’t there!

@IcedPurple

The acronym is Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. And Indie Sage are providing scientific information and advice in an emergency, so it's fairly clear what they are doing.

But who asked them to provide 'advice'?

If their aim was to be like Sage, but not to be constrained by having to please civil servants with their public comments, then their name sums up what they're doing rather well doesn't it?

But who are they 'advising'? Any govt advisory group is going to be "constrained by having to please civil servants with their public comments" because it's not their job to make policy, but to advise. Whereas the self-appointed 'Indy' Sage's aims seem to be the opposite, to publicly go against govt policy.

Choosing another acronym would have been more confusing for people.

Why? They're an entirely unofficial group. Why give themselves pseudo official title at all?

I think it was a time consuming and well intentioned venture driven by a desire to do some public good, by a group of well qualified academics.

Just my impression.

This Emily Dickinson?

Evidence suggests that Dickinson lived much of her life in isolation. Considered an eccentric by locals, she developed a penchant for white clothing and was known for her reluctance to greet guests or, later in life, to even leave her bedroom.