CDN/US Covid-related political discussion

[Halifax Tar]

But the experts advise govt. The experts do not create policy. It is a very distinct difference.

The govt can be completely procedurally (and legally, if stupidly) correct in saying “thank you for your time, but we’re doing something else instead”.

The implied here is that IMHO the politics of the "experts" compelled them to continue on supporting their advised COA(s) with out deviation.

 

[KevinB]

The implied here is that IMHO the politics of the "experts" compelled them to continue on supporting their advised COA(s) with out deviation.

It became pretty clear that Canada was beating to its own drum for a lot longer than other counties.

Now one can see why Politicians may be a little hesitant to quickly and easily lift restrictions once in place, as they are going to get gaslit if anything spikes.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It became pretty clear that Canada was beating to its own drum for a lot longer than other counties.

Now one can see why Politicians may be a little hesitant to quickly and easily lift restrictions once in place, as they are going to get gaslit if anything spikes.

We had a university here in Halifax lift mask restrictions in the last week.

Our politicians were acting out of pure political positions, if you ask me. It became a left V right issue and was going to be fought to the bitter end regardless to how the facts evolved. There was no benevolence or higher knowledge. It was simply a steadfast grasp to a position because of political ideology, and I think the experts bought into their own expertness.

 

[dimsum]

We had a university here in Halifax lift mask restrictions in the last week.

Our politicians were acting out of pure political positions, if you ask me. It became a left V right issue and was going to be fought to the bitter end regardless to how the facts evolved. There was no benevolence or higher knowledge. It was simply a steadfast grasp to a position because of political ideology, and I think the experts bought into their own expertness.

Yes, because if they didn’t, they would be hammered by their constituents. Or, called out by their opponents for flip-flopping. Look at that what happened to O’Toole on other matters.

Each party’s members think that they are doing the right thing for Canada, by ensuring their party is in power.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yes, because if they didn’t, they would be hammered by their constituents. Or, called out by their opponents for flip-flopping. Look at that what happened to O’Toole on other matters.

The difference is I actually expect our politicians to do what's best for Canadians, even when during many times Canadians cant identify what's actually best for them.

Instead what we had is exactly what we've come to expect from our political class. Governance for best possible electoral outcome instead of governance for best effect. And then a death grip on those policies because of political differences. Even as evidence mounted that our actions on WRT COVID were unnecessary and really inconsequential.

Each party’s members think that they are doing the right thing for Canada, by ensuring their party is in power.

Some more than others. The current Chinese Influence + LPC situation enters the chat.

 

[Kirkhill]

Generally a good humble idea, but if a government says "we don't know," is that an excuse to do nothing at all because there's no perfect solution right then, or to do what they know at the time to be the best that can be done?

Also, some people who were saying, "what's the science know? They can't agree" are now pointing to the same science proving their points? Is this like people complaining about bought-and-paid-for media until said media shares something they agree with/like? Hindsight's always 20-20.

Good point - more those that were deciding, because once the politicians have decided, the advisors generally have to toe the line.

Any good scientist will tell you "I don't know. The balance of probabilities are....." And whey you go to a different scientist you will get a different balance. Scientists aren't ministers and priests with access to The Truth. We have to wait for the next life to talk to the manager with that answer.

My biggest concern is that people were being treated as heretics suitable for burning if they deviated from the prescribed path. It is not that science has changed but that it was not accepted that science is imperfect, that the science is constantly changing and the new science, the new knowledge, doesn't deviate from the old science. It merely reflects new balances of probabilities.

So. That makes things hard for politicians. They can't hand off their decisions to "experts". They have to rely on their ability to decide and lead others in following their examples. And accept the consequences of their actions when they inevitably get things wrong..

And they have to do this while maintaining a "tolerant" society.

"what's the science know? They can't agree"

That is the correct answer. Always. Anybody that tells you different is wrong. Scientists are engaged in one, long, open-ended debate.

Who do you trust? Personally I am disinclined to trust anybody that proclaims they have the answer. I may be inclined to follow somebody else's course of action. But I could be wrong.

once the politicians have decided, the advisors generally have to toe the line.

That I believe to be wrong.... the decision, and the rationale, are always with the politicians. Good advisors will continue to advise and modify their advice as new evidence arises and the debates progress.



There is nobody that can tell you that this course of action will lead to this particular outcome - not without adding the caveat "I believe".

 

[Kirkhill]

The implied here is that IMHO the politics of the "experts" compelled them to continue on supporting their advised COA(s) with out deviation.

And there I think you have a different brand of politics - the career politics of the advisors. Once they are on record they have a vested interest in promoting their COA its "success" and denigrating those other advisors who read the tea leaves differently.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Any good scientist will tell you "I don't know. The balance of probabilities are....." And whey you go to a different scientist you will get a different balance. Scientists aren't ministers and priests with access to The Truth. We have to wait for the next life to talk to the manager with that answer.

My biggest concern is that people were being treated as heretics suitable for burning if they deviated from the prescribed path. It is not that science has changed but that it was not accepted that science is imperfect, that the science is constantly changing and the new science, the new knowledge, doesn't deviate from the old science. It merely reflects new balances of probabilities.

So. That makes things hard for politicians. They can't hand off their decisions to "experts". They have to rely on their ability to decide and lead others in following their examples. And accept the consequences of their actions when they inevitably get things wrong..

And they have to do this while maintaining a "tolerant" society.




That is the correct answer. Always. Anybody that tells you different is wrong. Scientists are engaged in one, long, open-ended debate.

Who do you trust? Personally I am disinclined to trust anybody that proclaims they have the answer. I may be inclined to follow somebody else's course of action. But I could be wrong.



That I believe to be wrong.... the decision, and the rationale, are always with the politicians. Good advisors will continue to advise and modify their advice as new evidence arises and the debates progress.



There is nobody that can tell you that this course of action will lead to this particular outcome - not without adding the caveat "I believe".

When I first heard "the science is settled" I knew we were dealing with a political war. Science is never settled.

 

[Kirkhill]

The difference is I actually expect our politicians to do what's best for Canadians, even when during many times Canadians cant identify what's actually best for them.

My wife and I are both reasonably technically savvy. We could at least follow the debates. And we came to very different conclusions. Of course, this being my marriage, she won. But I was right.

I believe in people by and large. I believe that most politicians, bureaucrats, experts and followers believed that their courses of action led to the best chance of the best possible outcome. But I could be wrong.

Instead what we had is exactly what we've come to expect from our political class. Governance for best possible electoral outcome instead of governance for best effect. And then a death grip on those policies because of political differences. Even as evidence mounted that our actions on WRT COVID were unnecessary and really inconsequential.



Some more than others. The current Chinese Influence + LPC situation enters the chat.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... Good advisors will continue to advise and modify their advice as new evidence arises and the debates progress ...

And they will continue to do so, but how long will an advisor who says "hey, the politicians f#$%^&*ed up here, even though I advised differently" survive? That's what I meant from advisors having to toe the line (or leave).

 

[Kirkhill]

And they will continue to do so, but how long will an advisor who says "hey, the politicians f#$%^&*ed up here, even though I advised differently" survive? That's what I meant from advisors having to toe the line (or leave).

And that is a morality question. For the advisor and the politician.

I was just thinking about the number of times I have had to dissuade people from calling me an expert in my field. Any propensity I had to accept the label was beaten out of me long ago with bosses and clients wanting me to call my shots and guarantee an outcome.

After everything is said and done you turn on the switch and things aren't perfect. You are reduced to turning a knob. The obvious call is to turn it to the left. You turn it to the left and discover that turning it to the right was the correct call. Or worse, turning it either way made no difference at all and you have to go looking for another knob.

That is why I am a fan of probabilities, experimentation and iteration. And probably the reason I have never made it to the higher advisory levels.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The role of advisers is to offer the best possible advice, irrespective of the wishes of executives.

The role of executives is to make decisions and set policy. They have agents to execute policy.

The advisers should be different people than the people who execute. Independent.

Whether the advisers are right or wrong, or the executives are right or wrong, there is no place for censorship. Unlikely claims still have to be met with reasoned open debate.

All past mistakes have to be acknowledged, including the mistake of censorship. Deliberate mistakes - censorship, falsification, etc - ought result in sanctions against those who made them. Things done with other motives - political advantage, social change - ought also be sanctioned, heavily, but there is no realistic likelihood of that.

 

[QV]

I don't know about the whole we didn't know at the time. What has been shown to be right now was once a dirty conspiracy theory. Masks, Lab Leaks, comorbidities, long term effects ect ect ect.

This became a left V right thing because those advising and making decisions couldn't look past their own politics.

At the time, the people in power censored or cancelled some of the smartest people in the world. How do you come back from that?

 

[OldSolduer]

I don't know about the whole we didn't know at the time. What has been shown to be right now was once a dirty conspiracy theory. Masks, Lab Leaks, comorbidities, long term effects ect ect ect.

This became a left V right thing because those advising and making decisions couldn't look past their own politics.

I really think that people cannot admit when they are wrong or were mistaken. When the evidence changes one should be able to adjust to that new evidence.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

At the time, the people in power censored or cancelled some of the smartest people in the world. How do you come back from that?

You likely don't, for about 20 years. The hyperbole over the last 3-4 years has been effective in making the population jaded and cynical. The governments of the US and Canada have put themselves in a position where the majority of the population don't believe them and don't trust them to act in our best interest. If they do, it's with a jaundiced eye. Which is not really a bad thing. It make people question the validity of the 'experts' and the governments that employ them. Lots of people are uncomfortable, but have become overloaded with propaganda, varying opinion and outright lies. They know something is wrong, but because of the amount of information, they can't articulate exactly what it is, but they know it's there. Whoever, has to cross that hurdle and regain trust, through honest good governance and honest information, before they can move on.

2x

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

At the time, the people in power censored or cancelled some of the smartest people in the world. How do you come back from that?

Horsecock!!

The "smartest people in the world" are,99% of the time, the ones whom agree to whatever position one has decided to fall onto and never budge from.

The modern social media phenomenon has made changing your mind/altering your stance the breaking of the 11th Commandment.

 

[QV]

Bruce, do think the people who, before C19, were recognized the world over for their work in those fields had anything of value to contribute to the C19 disaster? Or was ostracizing and shutting them down to protect the government narrative the correct thing to do?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Bruce, do think the people who, before C19, were recognized the world over for their work in those fields had anything of value to contribute to the C19 disaster? Or was ostracizing and shutting them down to protect the government narrative the correct thing to do?

List of names you have??

 

[dimsum]

List of names you have??

 

[QV]

List of names you have??

Sure Bruce and Dimsum. Here are a couple of people that may have been worth listening to:

Dr. Bhattacharya: Stanford University professor, physician, epidemiologist, health economist and public health policy expert.

Dr. Gupta: infectious disease epidemiologist and a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford. She has performed research on the transmission dynamics of various infectious diseases, including malaria, influenza and COVID-19,

Dr. Kulldorff: he was a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.[2] He is a member of the US Food and Drug Administration's Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and a former member of the Vaccine Safety Subgroup of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. McCullough: cardiology fellowship including service as Chief Fellow at William Beaumont Hospital, and master’s degree in public health at the University of Michigan. Dr. McCullough is a practicing internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist in Dallas Texas. Dr. McCullough has broadly published on a range of topics in medicine with > 1000 publications and > 660 citations in the National Library of Medicine. His works include the “Interface between Renal Disease and Cardiovascular Illness” in Braunwald’s Heart Disease Textbook. Dr. McCullough is a recipient of the Simon Dack Award from the American College of Cardiology and the International Vicenza Award in Critical Care Nephrology for his scholarship and research. He serves on the editorial boards of multiple specialty journals. He has served as member or chair of data safety monitoring boards of 24 randomized clinical trials.

Dr. Marik: has written over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles, 80 book chapters and authored four critical care books. His efforts have provided him the distinction of the second most published critical care physician in the world. He has been cited over 43,000 times in peer-reviewed publications and has an H-index of 77. He has delivered over 350 lectures at international conferences and visiting professorships.

Since the great C19 rollout there has been a lot of smear articles and negative wiki entries. But before C19 existed they were leading in their fields. As it turns out, these people were more correct than the government sponsored narrative. Go figure...