Here come those tiers again.

[Cismyfatarse]

New Fred.

[quote AudacityOfHope]The full report, showing the make up of the panel, is here:

www.parliament.scot/20210218CVDCitizensPanelReportFinal.pdf[/quote]
Thanks
I kind of want to ask you to set up a separate scotsnet AMA thread on this, but that's a bit of a cheeky ask! And I realise, no-one can hold you responsible for the views of the panel as a beast...and it might feel a bit of a pile on for you. I'm really interested in the process though (I know of Oliver escobar and have chatted with some of his colleagues RE citizens panels on an entirely different thing, in a previous life)

@AudacityOfHope

That's what the panel was for.

Not everyone will like what we agreed on but that's what it was designed to do.

I’m sorry, you think twenty people should decide for the whole 5.5 million of us?

Well exactly, frankly if our govts were focusing on world wide vaccination that's something I could get behind but it seems a built in failure valve and a bit of a nod to look like decent people as it stands without a meaty plan to help other countries vaccinate.

Don't be daft @GoldenOmber

Clearly we are not deciding anything. The government can set fire to our report if it wants...

The committee meeting just started if anyone feels especially nerdy. It's live on the website.

@AudacityOfHope

It's eliminate as much community transmission as possible basically. Zero isn't going to happen.

Thanks, I have great praise for the New Zealand approach and would love to be living there my friends definitely have a normal life to the large extent. But we are way to late to implement that and doesn't take into account transportation of fresh goods into the country is largely done by lorry. We are also way to slow to lock down so unless the govt is locking down cities for 5 days because of 3 cases which is what they do in New Zealand its not going to work. New Zealand also does have more living space even in cities large majority of people have a garden as there isn't too many flats due to earthquakes.

If they would have gone for this last year they would have had compliance but people are now very fatigued and disillusioned.

@GoldenOmber that paragraph you've bolded is pretty worrying. Reinforce the need for restrictions even when the majority of the vaccine roll-out is complete?
And how well is the Scottish population going to wear that if the apprach diverges significantly from rUK?
I'd imagine that anyone whose livelihood or lifestyle is significantly affected, and is able to move south, will do so. This is something we're currently looking it but obviously waiting to see how things play out in reality before taking any drastic (and expensive) steps.

How do you know your experts were not handpicked to produce an outcome Audacity?

I think they invited as many people as they could and these were who responded/could attend. Apart from Jason Leitch, Devi Sridhar, the rest were independent in public health, education, etc.

Some of our 'experts' were islanders, a uni student, a journalist, etc. Almost nobody actually from the government.

Devi Sridhar there's a surprise eh?

It's really interesting to watch glad one of the panel stated that the demographic was more mixed didn't appear that way at first!

I think the whole country wants to know what is an acceptable level point to then ease as that information seems to be a secret to everyone else!

Thanks for the link to the report, *Audacity.
It's an interesting read, and fascinating to read about the process too.

Have you read it, Golden?
Stating "I’m sorry, you think twenty people should decide for the whole 5.5 million of us?" is not really fair on Audacity and the other panel members who put a lot of time and effort into this, weighing up expert input and considering other people's points of view and experiences.

As Audacity already said, it contains recommendations, and the SG can adopt or ignore any or all of it. The panel aren't deciding anything - that's the government's job.

@MaxNormal

Devi Sridhar there's a surprise eh?

Wee bit unfair to pick one person out when I said above we heard from approx 30 people.

That panel report is just a rehash of the government's existing position. It looks exactly like the same experts who have been advising the Government sat down and gave the panel the same advice as they've been giving the Government for months and so, unsurprisingly, the panel went along with what they were told.

There's no insights into the gendered nature of the impact of the pandemic, and nothing meaningful on children, nothing about the very elderly. It pretty much concludes that the policy initiatives the Government has had in place pre-pandemic (rural broadband, waffle about assessments etc) are magically the same initiatives that it needs now.

You can certainly think that, but it was run by the Parliament and not the government so they are not intertwined.

A different group of panellists would, I'm sure, have come up with different recommendations as they would have had different life experiences, perceptions and discussions.

Scottish government in retrospective consultation exercise to give credence to yet more piss poor policies 🙄

Have you read it, Golden? Stating "I’m sorry, you think twenty people should decide for the whole 5.5 million of us?" is not really fair on Audacity and the other panel members who put a lot of time and effort into this, weighing up expert input and considering other people's points of view and experiences.

You’re missing the context of that. I’m not saying that it’s not a good thing to have had the panel or that the panel members didn’t work very hard.

The context was me saying that if the government want to do this - ‘this’ being, to be clear, putting in continued indefinite restrictions at a harsher level than we currently have for polio, for a disease which vaccines should reduce the danger of down to the level of seasonal flu - then that needs a public conversation. Not just the public being informed.

Audacity replied that this was what the panel was for. And, no, I’m sorry. Twenty people is not enough to sign off on the public getting a say on something this drastic.

It’s already a bit worrying that the report notes ‘concern’ that people wouldn’t want to do this, and then talks about how they can be convinced of the ‘need’ for this.

Of course the Parliament and the Government are intertwined!

I agree with Golden and titsbum.

Wee bit unfair to pick one person out when I said above we heard from approx 30 people

How on earth is it unfair to pick her out when she's a high-profile government advisor who is greatly comfortable with raising her media profile as much as possible, and with known strong views on zero covid and closed borders?

it's not like I'm picking out one of the ordinary panelists is it?

It’s already a bit worrying that the report notes ‘concern’ that people wouldn’t want to do this, and then talks about how they can be convinced of the ‘need’ for this

Quite. That's not started from a neutral position. Nor is having Sridhar on the panel.

You can certainly think that, but it was run by the Parliament and not the government so they are not intertwined.

😏 sure

@MaxNormal

It’s already a bit worrying that the report notes ‘concern’ that people wouldn’t want to do this, and then talks about how they can be convinced of the ‘need’ for this

Quite. That's not started from a neutral position. Nor is having Sridhar on the panel.

Anyone who can publish their opinions on a high profile personal Twitter account, whilst sitting on such a panel, is not in a neutral position.

Bang on starey re gendered nature of pandemic - plus, like all economic shocks, huge impact to the young and least educated.

If we could have 200, or 2000, or 20,000 people give their opinions directly to the government, that would be bloody great! But I'm not sure that would be workable, so I guess that's what voting is for.

But this is how they've decided to do it

Most countries in the world don't do citizen engagement at all. I think it's an excellent thing, even if it's a small thing.

You can spend the day picking the process apart, I'm off to work.

So you would prefer it if the expert advisors were ones you'd never heard of, rather than ones who are high profile because they've been advising the government throughout the pandemic. Or should it just be expert advisors who agree with your own views?
I think some of the comments to @AudacityOfHope are verging on attacks. She attended the forum and made recommendations in good faith. I certainly wouldn't be setting up an AMA thread based on some of the responses here.