Do you think that at times what we have referred to as ‘the science’ has got it wrong?

[MarshaBradyo]

I’m thinking about the many times people said well it’s going to go badly wrong and the science backs this up

But a few times this hasn’t happened

July opening
Omicron and not doing ‘circuit breaker’ and not ending in lockdown
Not getting close to best case for omicron

And so on - maybe other examples

What do you think - was it unnecessarily pessimistic?

No.

Scientific knowledge evolves over time as more data arrives and theories are revised. Predictions about future events therefore get refined. Newton's laws were found by Einstein to be incomplete. So science is always being updated and in that sense all scientific statements are potentially wrong. Science proceeds by falsifying what went before. Laboratory sciences depend on controlled repeatable observations. Sciences like economics are less well-based but are still pretty good imho. But predictions about events in the world of science are likely to be better than pontificating by politicians, many 8f whom lack any scientific or mathematical training.

Yes. The science also doesn’t take into account the economic situation and all the associated negatives of restrictions, or people who are vulnerable for other reasons. The science is only one part of the whole situation and can’t be looked at in isolation.

God yes! All the time! What are your views on Neil Ferguson's wild and wacky predictions now @PAFMO?

Interesting article attached about how scientific debate has been censored by Big Tech throughout the pandemic. I think the continual shutting down of debate and alternative opinions has actually played a large part in fuelling distrust in the authorities and vaccine hesitancy to be honest.

jacobinmag.com/2021/05/big-tech-censorship-science-covid-19-debate

@PAFMO

No.

You're wrong

The modelling has got it wrong at times, and so have the politicians.

I think that there was one assumption that modellers made which was wrong-that people mix homogeneously. As opposed to seeing continual exponential growth, we saw it up to a point and then it levelled off for really quite a long time before declining.

But there is no such thing as 'the science' because the whole point of science is that it evolves as data either agrees with or conflicts with models.

As for how we responded, you have to be fairly conservative. If you are too aggressive, it has a moderate additional economic cost. If you are not aggressive enough, you can have an out-of-control pandemic, causing the breakdown of society, many lives lost, and a far greater economic cost.

Our biggest mistake was not locking down early enough in the first lockdown....when we were going to have 'A very British response to Covid' (Thanks Boris!).

[quote nojudgementhere]God yes! All the time! What are your views on Neil Ferguson's wild and wacky predictions now @PAFMO?

Interesting article attached about how scientific debate has been censored by Big Tech throughout the pandemic. I think the continual shutting down of debate and alternative opinions has actually played a large part in fuelling distrust in the authorities and vaccine hesitancy to be honest.

jacobinmag.com/2021/05/big-tech-censorship-science-covid-19-debate[/quote]
I've always thought Ferguson was peddling his own agenda.

[quote nojudgementhere]God yes! All the time! What are your views on Neil Ferguson's wild and wacky predictions now @PAFMO?

Interesting article attached about how scientific debate has been censored by Big Tech throughout the pandemic. I think the continual shutting down of debate and alternative opinions has actually played a large part in fuelling distrust in the authorities and vaccine hesitancy to be honest.

jacobinmag.com/2021/05/big-tech-censorship-science-covid-19-debate[/quote]
Actually the 250,000 deaths if we didn't take action doesn't seem too off... The Warwick study that Indicated that we'd have 4,000 daily deaths from Omicron was clearly way off.

Of course it’s sometimes going to be ‘wrong’.
It’s a new and evolving situation.
Modelling and predictions are exactly that. It’s not set in stone, we know this for certain, I can prove it 100%…
We take the limited data we have and do the best we can with it. That’s it.
That why deco have to be made taking into account lots of opinions, data and factors. Not just one person screaming ‘we’re all gonna die!!’

I agree the science is a funny term as it’s a variety of voices and is also evolving

The reason I bring it up is I’m seeing similar posts to July and Omicron which is ‘I prefer to listen to the science’

I appreciate what Whitty and Vallance individually have brought to pandemic in expertise but there have been a few occasions now where posts referring to the science have been unduly pessimistic

Eg July opening
Omicron wave leading to lockdown or higher deaths
Relaxation of recent rules

Which makes me think the current situation may not pan out as badly as some are predicting based on the science (as some put it)

But each time the trust is there

Yes of course, modelling is prediction, it's always partial. Some situations are more stable and in some cases we have a lot more data (eg climate up to 100y) which helps the modelling to be more precise.

Government and media did a terrible job of explaining this. Probably because they were relying on persuading people to radically change their behaviour.

I think confusion occurred when perfectly good and thought out Data Models (which all the predictions and different outcomes you would expect from data modelling) got seen as being the science. Which simply doesnt exist - particularly not in an ever changing world.

Then you further add in the fact that you need a balanced all round approach that takes into account both the impact of covid and the impact of restrictions and mitigations rather than just a covid centric one (more and more as time has gone on)

Hasn't always been spot on because a lot of it is theory and modelling. What is frustrating is politicians claiming they are "following the science" when they only pick and choose which parts they want to listen to.

Not really.

The government, driven by pure economic interest, has got it a lot more wrong, a lot more times.

If the government followed scientific advice for pandemics, for example, we would have had an up-to-date supply of PPE ready, just one example.

Science has provided us with vaccines in super quick time, and with an array of treatments that have cut the death rate very quickly.

As regards lockdowns, they are a strong measure, but at times have a place, for example in March/ April 2020 when on the one hand we had a risk of emergency services being over-run and on the other hand we really didn't know what we were dealing with as far as the virus was concerned.

Very few people, as I remember, actually wanted a lockdown over Christmas 2021.

I appreciate what Whitty and Vallance individually have brought to pandemic in expertise but there have been a few occasions now where posts referring to the science have been unduly pessimistic

There was a couple of times where these two used out of date modelling and figures. Don't believe me Google it.

[quote nojudgementhere]God yes! All the time! What are your views on Neil Ferguson's wild and wacky predictions now @PAFMO?

Interesting article attached about how scientific debate has been censored by Big Tech throughout the pandemic. I think the continual shutting down of debate and alternative opinions has actually played a large part in fuelling distrust in the authorities and vaccine hesitancy to be honest.

jacobinmag.com/2021/05/big-tech-censorship-science-covid-19-debate[/quote]
I honestly can't believe anyone would give that man a job after his performance during this pandemic

The problem is people are always saying 'the science', well it doesn't exist it isn't one body who says things it's made up of various people who have different opinions.

And Fergussen is frankly rubbish, and been wrong so much. And obviously wasn't frightened as he was shagging his mistress and got kicked out of sage but was back shortly after.

I think my issue is people say in hindsight it was only modelling etc they can be off

But at any new stage a fresh round of well the science says this and it’s not seen to have same level of uncertainty

With omicron so many posts re we will end up in lockdown and not just on here but in messaging from SAGE and Nabarro

But when that passes and it wasn’t bad we say ok it’s not exact

But then still same belief next stage will be bad and we are being warned not to do it (by some not all)

Maybe we should say it wasn’t exact then.. and still isn’t

The major problem is that there isn't and couldn't ever be one unified 'the science'. It's always been about priorities and tradeoffs. Unfortunately, lots of people don't understand this, and indeed are very keen on the idea of The Science.

We were dealing with a new situation, and medicine is an inexact science.
Scientists have been modelling, adjusting the models with new evidence throughout.

And also, naturally, different people interpret the facts and figures in different ways because we're all different.
If I'd had the facts and figures in front of me I would almost certainly come to a different conclusion to others here. It wouldn't make the facts and figures wrong, simply a different interpretation.

And we were in a situation no one had dealt with before. There was no previous data to use as a reference.

Equally well we can look at the times when scientists have said things that have proved too optimistic. There's just as many of those-simply people are less inclined to sneer at them.
There were plenty of scientists in October/November last year saying that they didn't expect case numbers to get worse again. In February 2021, Scientists predicted 30k more deaths by June 2022-we're already at nearly 40k deaths since then.

So, as you'd expect, there have been optimistic predictions; there have been pessimistic predictions. Sometimes they've been right; sometimes they've been wrong.
That's exactly as you'd expect with people dealing with an ever changing scenario.

@VikingOnTheFridge

The major problem is that there isn't and couldn't ever be one unified 'the science'. It's always been about priorities and tradeoffs. Unfortunately, lots of people don't understand this, and indeed are very keen on the idea of The Science.

Yes - a lot of people still seem very set on the idea that The Science is some kind of oracle that will tell you the single right answer for any given question. Doesn't work like that!

Perhaps the better question would be when have they got it right?

And the second best question would be has the “actuary” ever got it right!

@TheReluctantPhoenix

The modelling has got it wrong at times, and so have the politicians.

I think that there was one assumption that modellers made which was wrong-that people mix homogeneously. As opposed to seeing continual exponential growth, we saw it up to a point and then it levelled off for really quite a long time before declining.

But there is no such thing as 'the science' because the whole point of science is that it evolves as data either agrees with or conflicts with models.

As for how we responded, you have to be fairly conservative. If you are too aggressive, it has a moderate additional economic cost. If you are not aggressive enough, you can have an out-of-control pandemic, causing the breakdown of society, many lives lost, and a far greater economic cost.

Our biggest mistake was not locking down early enough in the first lockdown....when we were going to have 'A very British response to Covid' (Thanks Boris!).

As for how we responded, you have to be fairly conservative. If you are too aggressive, it has a moderate additional economic cost. If you are not aggressive enough, you can have an out-of-control pandemic, causing the breakdown of society, many lives lost, and a far greater economic cost.

Absolutely this. If the modellers had gone on the optimistic side and then it had been worst-case and we had millions more preventable deaths, it would have been appalling - the models were never going to be bang-on, they erred on the side of caution as it was sensible to do.