You are here: Home → Forum → General Bullshit → freedom of information request from the office of national statistics
freedom of information request from the office of national statistics
Users viewing topic: & 1 Guest
This thread has been closed by a moderator. Replies are no longer possible.| Rick |  | ... | 09-02-2022 @ 16:12 |
 I am a bench-only guy Member 3, 10035 posts SQ 185, BP 175, DL 235595.0 kgs @ 140kgs UnEq Administrator | Nimble said: I’m honestly amazed that someone as clearly intelligent and well-intentioned as you can hold this position. My feelings are very similar with respect to you. I was a research scientist. It took me most of a year of full-time study, with expert individual guidance, straight out of three years of specialised preparatory study (plus a good deal of the previous two), before I could read the literature meaningfully - in my own tiny corner of a relatively young and shallow discipline with no real-world connection or statistical difficulties, let alone widespread fraud and incompetence. And I was considered an exceptionally quick and strong student. The fact that you think you can meaningfully interpret and judge the research literature in a discipline not your own or anywhere very near to your own, without expert guidance, and with (as has become very clear) a significant amount of deliberate fraud and doubtless a lot more simple statistical incompetence to cloud the picture, is frankly astonishing to me. Now, we can have conversations about how research should feed into policy - but even there, without significant epidemiological and actuarial training, it's not going to be easy to have an opinion that deserves any weight except in a (potentially enjoyable) bull session. Things are DIFFICULT. It's very easy for bad actors (and indeed true believers) to convince intelligent non-specialists of absolute nonsense - as, I would argue, much of our political discourse of the last three quarters of a decade or so shows. | ||
| KevC86 |  | ... | 10-02-2022 @ 07:02 |
 Member 5141, 4211 posts SQ 300, BP 180, DL 350830.0 kgs @ 130kgs UnEq | Rick said: My feelings are very similar with respect to you. I was a research scientist. It took me most of a year of full-time study, with expert individual guidance, straight out of three years of specialised preparatory study (plus a good deal of the previous two), before I could read the literature meaningfully - in my own tiny corner of a relatively young and shallow discipline with no real-world connection or statistical difficulties, let alone widespread fraud and incompetence. And I was considered an exceptionally quick and strong student. The fact that you think you can meaningfully interpret and judge the research literature in a discipline not your own or anywhere very near to your own, without expert guidance, and with (as has become very clear) a significant amount of deliberate fraud and doubtless a lot more simple statistical incompetence to cloud the picture, is frankly astonishing to me. Now, we can have conversations about how research should feed into policy - but even there, without significant epidemiological and actuarial training, it's not going to be easy to have an opinion that deserves any weight except in a (potentially enjoyable) bull session. Things are DIFFICULT. It's very easy for bad actors (and indeed true believers) to convince intelligent non-specialists of absolute nonsense - as, I would argue, much of our political discourse of the last three quarters of a decade or so shows. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding here but is the short version of your feelings on this something to the effect that: If enough "experts" tell you something is true you will trust them even if everything you personally know suggests otherwise? For example if you're handed a "flying suit" and they assure you it'll fly would you jump from a plane trusting the suit even though to you it is clearly just a regular suit and you don't believe it will allow you to fly? (An absurd example i know but it gets the point across). | ||
| Nimble | | ... | 10-02-2022 @ 07:57 |
 woefully weak Member 4748, 1506 posts SQ 157, BP 133, DL 260550.0 kgs @ 104kgs UnEq | Post Edited: 10.02.2022 @ 07:59 AM by Nimble Rick said: The fact that you think you can meaningfully interpret and judge the research literature in a discipline not your own or anywhere very near to your own, without expert guidance, and with (as has become very clear) a significant amount of deliberate fraud and doubtless a lot more simple statistical incompetence to cloud the picture, is frankly astonishing to me. started replying to this but something came up — too busy for the next little bit! May still write that essay if I get a moment, haha | ||
| macroth | | ... | 10-02-2022 @ 08:11 |
 no longer the Swiss Deadlift record holder Member 3517, 3368 posts SQ 182.5, BP 122.5, DL 255560.0 kgs @ 90kgs UnEq | KevC86 said: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding here but is the short version of your feelings on this something to the effect that: If enough "experts" tell you something is true you will trust them even if everything you personally know suggests otherwise? For example if you're handed a "flying suit" and they assure you it'll fly would you jump from a plane trusting the suit even though to you it is clearly just a regular suit and you don't believe it will allow you to fly? (An absurd example i know but it gets the point across). "Everything you actually know" is more often than not jack s**t, a few personal anecdotes mixed up with ignorance, minsinterpretation of facts and more importantly a lack of awareness of how much you don't know. And I'm speaking for myself here. I'm struggling to think of a situation where "everything I actually know" would hold weight against scientific consensus, so if you have a better example than the flying suit, don't hesitate to share. And by the way, I don't think Rick is saying to listen to anyone that labels themselves an "expert", quite the contrary. | ||
| danbaseley | | ... | 10-02-2022 @ 12:40 |
 A member for 10 years and still no mouldy peanuts Member 1252, 4481 posts SQ 160, BP 110, DL 215485.0 kgs @ 98kgs UnEq | Why do sceptics - and people who "do their own research" - have no issue assuming that gravity is real, or that aeroplanes fly view thrust and lift (as opposed to via the say-so of the Bilderberg group), or that it's paracetamol in your tablet: not mind control pills? But, there have been so many "experts" appearing over the last year, countering peer reviewed journals - with their own non peer reviewed hypotheses and theories? | ||
| Rick | | ... | 10-02-2022 @ 14:45 |
I am a bench-only guy Member 3, 10035 posts SQ 185, BP 175, DL 235595.0 kgs @ 140kgs UnEq Administrator | KevC86 said: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding here but is the short version of your feelings on this something to the effect that: If enough "experts" tell you something is true you will trust them even if everything you personally know suggests otherwise? For example if you're handed a "flying suit" and they assure you it'll fly would you jump from a plane trusting the suit even though to you it is clearly just a regular suit and you don't believe it will allow you to fly? (An absurd example i know but it gets the point across). If you replace "suit" by "rucksack", then this is a parachute. So, possibly. And it's still less common-sense unlikely than massive hunks of steel flying in the first place - and I write as somebody who has taught fluid mechanics and lift effects! (A very long time ago...) | ||
| Nimble | | ... | 11-02-2022 @ 02:51 |
woefully weak Member 4748, 1506 posts SQ 157, BP 133, DL 260550.0 kgs @ 104kgs UnEq | Post Edited: 11.02.2022 @ 02:53 AM by Nimble I said: Rick said: The fact that you think you can meaningfully interpret and judge the research literature in a discipline not your own or anywhere very near to your own, without expert guidance, and with (as has become very clear) a significant amount of deliberate fraud and doubtless a lot more simple statistical incompetence to cloud the picture, is frankly astonishing to me. started replying to this but something came up — too busy for the next little bit! May still write that essay if I get a moment, haha Not going to have time for an “essay” for a while, but the basic jist of it is this: no, I don’t believe I can interpret the literature on a technical level without guidance, but I think it’s clear that research can be judged on various levels. The lowest most technical level is only accessible to specialists in that field, but next, broad issues of statistics and study design can be critiqued by anyone with some scientific competence (you seem to be doing this yourself), and on a higher level inference from the conclusions of multiple experts, consideration of possible vested interests etc. if this weren’t the case, politics would be impossible. I think we probably agree on this because as I say, you (it seems to me rightly) expressing concerns about the meta analysis shared above are operating somewhere between these 2nd and 3rd levels. Where I think we disagree is how this might be implemented in terms of policy which you seemed to acknowledge, even according to your view of these matters, is an area that’s “up for debate”. My basic feelings here (and this is where the essay is required!) are: 1) if someone is proposing radical social change/upheaval, the burden of proof is heavily on their side of the issue 2) it’s impossible to be an expert on lockdowns because they’re inscrutable to science due to insufficient statistical power (small sample size, not comparing like for like, virtually unlimited scope for hacking the variables) 3) even if (2) were not the case, the question of whether or not to optimize society around minimizing mortality over an arbitrary period is an ethical and not an epidemiological issue, so that question should be decided by society, not experts 4) handing the keys of the castle, so to speak, to black-box expertise is an extremely dangerous precedent even if in the present they are benign; even if we grant it’s the right thing to do (i don’t), checks and balances should be put in place to manage now that plays out, at a constitutional level. I’d imagine we’re not 100% at odds on *all* of those issues. | ||
| macroth | | ... | 11-02-2022 @ 08:50 |
no longer the Swiss Deadlift record holder Member 3517, 3368 posts SQ 182.5, BP 122.5, DL 255560.0 kgs @ 90kgs UnEq | Nimble said: 4) handing the keys of the castle, so to speak, to black-box expertise In which country has this happened? checks and balances should be put in place to manage now that plays out, at a constitutional level. In which country are there no constitutional checks and balances, or, what additional checks and balances do you have in mind? Around the world, governments with access to identical sets of data but operating in slightly different political systems and basing their decisions on different groups of national or international experts, have taken a wide range of measures -some identical and others not at all, some in agreement with expert recommendations and others not at all- and have faced varying degrees of political and popular protest in the process. Covid measures have been challenged in court and some times struck down in the US, in France, in Spain, in Belgium... Local and national elections were held in many countries throughout 2021. I'm not going to claim that the system is perfect, but I simply don't understand where this idea that anonymous experts have taken absolute control of our lives is coming from. | ||
| Nimble | | ... | 11-02-2022 @ 09:13 |
woefully weak Member 4748, 1506 posts SQ 157, BP 133, DL 260550.0 kgs @ 104kgs UnEq | macroth said: In which country are there no constitutional checks and balances, or, what additional checks and balances do you have in mind? Around the world, governments with access to identical sets of data but operating in slightly different political systems and basing their decisions on different groups of national or international experts, have taken a wide range of measures -some identical and others not at all, some in agreement with expert recommendations and others not at all- and have faced varying degrees of political and popular protest in the process. Covid measures have been challenged in court and some times struck down in the US, in France, in Spain, in Belgium... Local and national elections were held in many countries throughout 2021. I'm not going to claim that the system is perfect, but I simply don't understand where this idea that anonymous experts have taken absolute control of our lives is coming from. I’m not saying it’s happened, just that Rick seems to be implying that it should. It is however the case that society has been radically upended on the advice of experts, handing them de facto power way beyond what is typical of normal civil service or advisory roles, that were not voted in or appointed in the (constitutionally controlled) way that, say, a Lord or judge would be. If they’re likely to have that kind of power or more going forward, there should be similar processes to go through… that’s my point. | ||
| Nimble | | ... | 11-02-2022 @ 09:19 |
woefully weak Member 4748, 1506 posts SQ 157, BP 133, DL 260550.0 kgs @ 104kgs UnEq | Clearly they’re not able to directly wield power, but what we’ve seen is leaders effectively saying (and siding with Rick’s position in doing so) “I don’t/can’t understand the science, so I can but directly implement the experts’ advice”… | ||
| Rick | | ... | 11-02-2022 @ 10:08 |
I am a bench-only guy Member 3, 10035 posts SQ 185, BP 175, DL 235595.0 kgs @ 140kgs UnEq Administrator | In my opinion, you're putting up a straw man here. Nimble said:Clearly they’re not able to directly wield power, but what we’ve seen is leaders effectively saying (and siding with Rick’s position in doing so) “I don’t/can’t understand the science, so I can but directly implement the experts’ advice”… Some may be SAYING that. They're not DOING that. Look. The usual process of government, particularly in a state like Britain where the modern tradition is non-expert ministers (usually not staying long in any particular role or with any notable domain expertise) running largely-expert ministries, with the benefit of extensive advice from, most obviously, key senior civil servants. Vintage sitcom material, in fact. The minister makes the final decisions, but (one hopes) they will take the advice of the people with a clue pretty seriously. And they fairly often do, with obvious exceptions (particularly, where broadcast policy is contrary to most expert advice, most obviously in recent times over Brexit, and for decades over a good deal of criminal justice policy). This is exactly what happened at the start of the pandemic, albeit not very promptly. Advice was given, and mostly taken. As the pandemic has gone on, the ministers have shown themselves less and less likely to follow the scientific concensus. This is - in my opinion, at least - because they are now more interested in doing what will be acceptable to their own back benches (the public appear largely to want them to do what the scientific broad consensus says) in order to preserve their current positions, rather than because of any genuine disagreement over what would be wise. So. There is no such black box policy making machine, and nobody is proposing one. Ministers, everywhere, over-rule expert advice whenever they want to, usually for bad reasons, and it's usually a s**tshow. Finally, to address the implications of an earlier post: you appear to be calling brief quarantines an extraordinary imposition requiring extraordinary evidence. But they aren't. They're completely standard reactions to epidemics, used for centuries, and the clear front-line tool against novel diseases. It's just that, in the West, we've been lucky enough not to need one for a while. Which is probably why the East Asians generally handled this so much better - they have. | ||
| Nimble | | ... | 11-02-2022 @ 10:28 |
woefully weak Member 4748, 1506 posts SQ 157, BP 133, DL 260550.0 kgs @ 104kgs UnEq | Rick said: Finally, to address the implications of an earlier post: you appear to be calling brief quarantines an extraordinary imposition requiring extraordinary evidence. But they aren't. They're completely standard reactions to epidemics, used for centuries, and the clear front-line tool against novel diseases. I take issue with the word “brief” but yes, this is exactly what I’m implying. If you can find historical precedent for nationwide lockdowns of the kind that have been practiced over the last couple of years, I’d be (genuinely) fascinated to see them. What has been practiced historically is regional isolation — something I’ve been in favour of since the beginning but that has, to my knowledge, only really been implemented in Australia and China, with some apparent success. | ||
| Billwest | | ... | 11-02-2022 @ 11:20 |
Member 541, 4904 posts SQ 192.5, BP 120, DL 222.5535.0 kgs @ 92.8kgs UnEq | Nimble said: I take issue with the word “brief” but yes, this is exactly what I’m implying. If you can find historical precedent for nationwide lockdowns of the kind that have been practiced over the last couple of years, I’d be (genuinely) fascinated to see them. What has been practiced historically is regional isolation — something I’ve been in favour of since the beginning but that has, to my knowledge, only really been implemented in Australia and China, with some apparent success. Something like this was practised last year wasn't it, with different limitations depending on the band you were in? Did it work? Not really. Regional isolation, in a country the size of the UK? Comparing the UK with Australia and China. One has a history of regional state level government, the other is an authoritarian government that can do as it pleases. Not really a good basis for comparison. The only real regional government here is based on the Welsh, NI and Scottish assemblies, and as far as lockdowns were concerned they have all followed Westminster's lead. | ||
| Nimble | | ... | 11-02-2022 @ 11:29 |
woefully weak Member 4748, 1506 posts SQ 157, BP 133, DL 260550.0 kgs @ 104kgs UnEq | Billwest said: Something like this was practised last year wasn't it, with different limitations depending on the band you were in? Did it work? Not really. Regional isolation, in a country the size of the UK? Comparing the UK with Australia and China. One has a history of regional state level government, the other is an authoritarian government that can do as it pleases. Not really a good basis for comparison. The only real regional government here is based on the Welsh, NI and Scottish assemblies, and as far as lockdowns were concerned they have all followed Westminster's lead. Yes, it would be difficult to implement in the UK as we’re extremely centralised. But I think this is an (not insurmountable, if the will was there) issue with UK politics, rather than a problem with the approach. China has advantages in this area beyond simple authoritarianism — they have serious, organised and empowered government capability at every scale, right down to virtually street level. (As a not unrelated aside, I’m a big proponent of proper local government, which needn’t have anything to do with authoritarianism, but the tories — in practice, in contrast to their rhetoric — are quite against it, sadly.) | ||
| dannyboy73 | | ... | 11-02-2022 @ 18:14 |
Mask it or Casket !! Member 4600, 8166 posts SQ 240, BP 162.5, DL 255657.5 kgs @ 90.5kgs UnEq | Post Edited: 11.02.2022 @ 18:26 PM by dannyboy73 Maybe because they are sceptical and not conspiracist?The 'allowed' experts were a million miles off course with the modeling. For example 2-5k would be dead every day in January without lockdowns, which of course did not happen. Now sorry to labour this point but the evangelical narrative followers appear to have a blind spot whenever the 'experts' get it so very wrong. Here is the issue. we call these experts 'the science'. Therefore if you dont agree with these experts reasons (hysterical modeling) for lockdowns then you are what? Someone who doesnt understand science? Is science not about testing hypothesis and allowing opposition? And worse still, the experts that raised valid concerns have been smeared and censored. Its a very dangerous precedent to set when opposition is censored. This is where we have been these past 2 years and quiet righ people are questioning the 'science'. However, things are changing which is why more and more media channels are allowing the experts who disagree with 'the science' (christ how did we get here) a voice. The 'experts' have had to much control over my/ our lives. way of life and it has to end and never happen again. Unless, of course, you want to live in a country with increasing control over its people and the social credit system like China? Id say, a frighteningly large amount of people do... Rant over. danbaseley said:Why do sceptics - and people who "do their own research" - have no issue assuming that gravity is real, or that aeroplanes fly view thrust and lift (as opposed to via the say-so of the Bilderberg group), or that it's paracetamol in your tablet: not mind control pills? But, there have been so many "experts" appearing over the last year, countering peer reviewed journals - with their own non peer reviewed hypotheses and theories? | ||