Interesting BMJ article about No Deal

[CloudyVanilla]

www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5300

Hadn't heard of a few of the things mentioned in this before. Scary as I was hoping for reassurance that No Deal wouldn’t be as bad as I’d feared :(

They sound utterly inadequate and I actually feel sorry for the people who insist it’s all “project fear scaremongering” as they will be the least prepared.

Am pregnant and will be giving birth after Brexit, getting anxious about it now.

Definition of scare mongering = the spreading of frightening or ominous reports and rumours. I'm just deeply confused by people alleging this about the BMJ and other similar bodies - why would it be in the interests of a bunch of doctors to put the fear of god into people about drug and manpower shortages if it wasn't true?
What would be the point?

Thank @cherin , noted. Tbh I haven't engaged that much with Brexit threads because I find it so depressing, I feel dismayed about the division it's causing and have periodic phases of trying to understand the reasoning of "the other side". But it just makes it worse.

Ah, ok thanks cherin

So, it's interesting that you pulled out those two examples.

Obviously I'm going to point out that MM is a founder of NHS Against Brexit (a civil society organisation which campaigns to remain in the EU.

TH was adviser to the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee.

I could point out that TH has a Hungarian father, or that their research is out of date - they link to an article in The Independent (Jan) - "Freight trade across the Channel could fall up to 87 per cent under no-deal scenario" - we are expecting 40-60% capacity now.

Why does it make the research less likely to be true if he has a Hungarian father? Jesus wept.

I could point out that TH has a Hungarian father

Your xenophobia is showing.

So EU pays for research saying leaving the EU is bad........

Hasn't the British government also paid for research that says leaving is bad? I'd imagine that if Djibouti paid for research it would say the same. But in Arabic.

Your xenophobia is showing.

How is pointing out bias xenophobic? DS works for Bocconi University in Milan - is that xenophobic?

Professor DS, not mumsnet ds.

Bias is one thing. Pointing out where people's parents are from is quite another.

A person from another European country, or who studies in another European country, or has family from another European country, a person with strong academic credentials, is perfectly able in an unbiased manner to assess the likely negative impacts of the UK leaving the EU.

Much of their information is out of date or they mention articles such as this one in The Guardian for evidence;

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/03/secret-education-report-no-deal-brexit-school-chaos

Comments such as, "contracting with a shipping company with no ships", "A desperate UK may, however, feel compelled to sign a deal with the US" and, "Johnson’s appointment of numerous advisers from extreme free-market organisations" indicate political bias.

And of course, "MM is a founder of NHS Against Brexit (a civil society organisation which campaigns to remain in the EU.)"

The Guardian article is about a Government report from The Department of Education. Please can you explain to me why that is biased?

Unfortunately the BMA (the BMJ is its organ as well as publishing peer reviewed research) is, I am sorry to say, no longer the well respected body it once was. It is now extremely politicised, frequently acting as a lobby group. This is sad as it was once politically neutral and concerned solely with medical issues.

That aside, this article comprises pure conjecture and little else. It says nothing new and is simply an addition to the scaremongering propaganda which has been emanating in force from the BMA. That it should be published in a national professional journal (albeit one which is not as well regarded as it once was) is scurrilous imo.

Fucking hell I leave the thread and come back to “his father is Hungarian so his research is bullshit”

Let’s face it the EU are well shot of us really

CloudyVanilla
I implied bias because of parentage, not bullshit.

londonloves
The Guardian article is about a Government report from The Department of Education.Please can you explain to me why that is biased?

I was pointing out that they have linked to articles in The Guardian (x 3), also The Independent, The Times, Sky and the BBC for some of their evidence - you don't have to be an expert to do that! Newspaper articles don't suddenly turn into expert evidence because they are referred to in the BMJ. Some of these articles are just speculation, e.g. 260,000 pensioners might be heading back to the UK from Spain because of Brexit, some of the facts are suspect, e.g. a 'so-called' leaked report 'for discussion' that wasn't actually discussed, and some of the information is out of date, e.g. possible 80% reduction in freight traffic through Dover.

SonEtLumiere
if life expectancy in the UK dropped by 3/5/10 years post Brexit is
that OK

Of course not, what a daft question.

I implied bias because of parentage, not bullshit.

Implying someone is suspect because of their parentage doesn't sound sinister at all.

sinister
Stop being ridiculous.

"Bias is disproportionate weight in favour of or against an idea or thing."

This is BMJ cover on 18 June 2016, and the editorial opening text that went with it. I read it then & read it now as "We hate getting dragged into political debate but we refuse to pretend any more that this potential disaster doesn't exist."

The BMJ, the BMJ, that well respected medical journal

It's not the oracle nor the gospel tbh. It's not infallible or 100% well-respected and their peer-review is not robust.

That's not to say there's not any truth in the article. I'm just saying don't necessarily believe it because it's the BMJ.