CV19 - The Anti Vaxxers Are Back

[Gadgetmac]

It’s the post-truth world we now inhabit aided and abetted by social media.

[Gadgetmac]

If you distrust the experts you should have a logically sound reason for it and have data to back you up. If not it is just "a gut feeling" you're running on.

[Gadgetmac]

purplepenguin said:

audidoody said:

I've been reading many papers and articles by medical experts about the potential adverse affects of wearing cloth masks for extended periods and explaining what Pathogen Priming and Antibody Dependent Enhancement is in relation to an mRNA vaccine.

I will not wear a cloth mask
I ain't having the jab.

I do however have an armful of vaccination and booster marks for typhoid, yellow fever, smallpox, hepatitis, tetanus and flu to prove I am not an '`anti-vaxxer'.

I’m afraid that’s just not good enough! You must believe the science and the experts otherwise you are a granny killer

Or he could believe you and receive his goldplated anti-vax/conspiracy theorists badge

[Gadgetmac]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yep, all pretty basic stuff.

[Gadgetmac]

otolith said:

isaldiri said:

Blue62 said:

If you have evidence that they ‘scurry off’ prey tell, I think it just as likely that they are sought out. Not only that, but if the government had an issue with Farrar et al engaging with the media they would intervene.

Well clearly you think sage scientists doing this is acceptable. I don't.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/sage-advise...

Whether or not they are sought out by the media is a different issue unrelated to the fact that the government scientists are publicly pushing for political decisions that go far beyond their mandate as government scientific advisors and when they do so there's imo a serious conflict of interest with them being able to provide the government with unbiased scientific advice. Which is what they are actually there for.

They can bang on to the media about whatever they want to push for but resign from sage first as far as I'm concerned.

So if someone is advising Sage, they are not allowed to express the same position to a Royal Society of Medicine webinar? Should they express a different view, or give up their day job?

Being employed by the government are they not bound by the official secrets act?

[Gadgetmac]

otolith said:

Gadgetmac said:

Being employed by the government are they not bound by the official secrets act?

Don't think that's relevant. An academic expert on climate change is not obliged to stop talking publicly about the need for reaching net zero CO2 emissions on a given timescale just because he's given the same advice to government. These things are advice, not secrets.

If they are 'special advisors' they are apparently:

HSR 8: Special Advisers

1. The activities and terms of service of Special Advisers are governed by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act and by the Special Advisers' Code of Conduct. With the exception of up to three appointments in No10, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act and the Code of Conduct
restrict Special Advisers to an advisory role. The Code of Conduct sets out their duties and responsibilities. It makes clear that Special Advisers must act in a way which upholds the political impartiality of civil servants and does not conflict with the Civil Service Code (see HSR 1). It also lists
the sorts of work a Special Adviser may do at the request of their Minister. The Civil Service Management Code (CSMC) recognises that in order to do their jobs effectively and assist Ministers in the handling of Government business, Special Advisers may, on behalf of their Ministers, convey Ministers' views and work priorities and commissions civil servants to prepare internal papers and analyses. (The Special Advisers' code is available on the Cabinet Office website).

2. Where a civil servant has concerns about any request coming from a Special Adviser they should discuss their concern with the Special Adviser or their line manager or the PUS. If a civil servant feels unable to do this then they may raise the matter directly with the Secretary of the Cabinet at the
Cabinet Office or with the Civil Service Commissioners.

3. Special Advisers are appointed on contracts in accordance with Chapter 1, Section 15 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The contract finishes at the end of the Government of the day, or when the appointing Minister leaves the Government or moves to another appointment
or when there is a general election. Once appointed, Special Advisers are Crown servants who owe duties of loyalty and confidentiality to the Crown and are subject to the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1989.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

I suppose it's whether or not the members of Sage are classified as Special Advisors.

I only bring this up because unbeknown to me I was once bound by the Official Secrets Act without ever having signed it I later discovered.

[Gadgetmac]

Taylor James said:

Some walts think that being bound by the OSA is like a 00 ID card. Junior clerks in HMRC are bound by it...

OSA or not, the government should keep a grip on communication and it seems to me that this has been one of its biggest failings. I wonder what's changed to make so many people around the government feel justified in opining publicly and why they get away with it. I always believed a golden rule of PR was to control the message.

They don't appear to be able to win with some though.

They are blamed by the conspiraloons for tightly 'controlling the message' and now you're blaming them for 'failing to control the message'.

It's a tough job pleasing everybody all of the time.

[Gadgetmac]

Electro1980 said:

It’s not about “winning” it’s about challenging ignorance so other people don’t go spreading garbage. We have seen this year how unchecked ignorance on Internet forums can cause major damage, so where I see it I feel it needs to be challenged.

^^^ This.

You can fill your boots on the ‘Cure worse than the disease’ thread.