Kate Winslet explains the Rº of various diseases in the film 'Contagion'
At the end of last week, you may have seen some rather scary news: the R value, the average number of people infected by each person who has Covid-19, had gone back up.
Professor John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine appeared before the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons and said as much. The R value was now between 0.6 and 1, he thought, but “if you’d asked me two weeks ago I’d have given lower numbers, about 0.6 or 0.7, maybe up to 0.8.” It got quite a lot of attention.
But I want to suggest (as in fact Edmunds himself did) that this isn’t the bad news people seem to think; in fact it’s a product of our success, rather than of our failure. Here’s why.
There’s an interesting statistical anomaly called Simpson’s paradox. It is that you can find a trend going one way in lots of individual datasets, but that when you combine those datasets, it can make the trend look like it’s going the other way.
That sounds quite dry, so let me use a famous example. In the autumn of 1973, 8,442 men and 4,321 women applied to graduate school at UC Berkeley. Of those, 44% of the men were admitted, compared with just 35% of the women.
But this is not the clear-cut example of sex bias that it seems. In most of the departments of the university, female applicants were more likely than male applicants to be admitted. In the most popular, 82% of women were admitted compared to just 62% of men; in the second most popular, 68% of women compared to 65% of men. Overall, there was a “small but statistically significant bias in favour of women”.
What’s going on? Well: men and women were applying for different departments. For instance, of the 933 applicants for the most popular department — let’s call it A — just 108 were women, but of the 714 applicants for the sixth most popular department (call it B), 341 were women.
Let’s take a look at just those two departments. Women were more likely to be admitted to both. But, crucially, the two departments had hugely different rates of acceptance: in Department A, 82% of female applicants and 62% of male ones were accepted; in Department B, 7% and 6%.
So of the 108 women applying to Department A, 89 of them were admitted (82%), while of the 825 men applying, 511 got in (62%). Meanwhile, of the 341 who applied to Department B, just 24 (7%) were admitted; for men, it was 22 out of 373 (6%).
You see what’s going on here? In both departments, women were more likely to be accepted. But added together, it’s a different story. Of 449 women who applied to the two departments, just 111 were accepted: 25%. Whereas of the 1,199 men who applied to the two, 533 got in: 44%.
So, to repeat: even though any individual woman applying to either department had a higher chance of being admitted, on average fewer women were admitted because they tended to apply to more competitive departments.
This doesn’t mean that we’ve once-and-forever ruled out any form of sex bias — it might be, for instance, that there is a lack of investment in the popular but female-dominated classes — but it does show that the simple, top-line, aggregated numbers can mislead. When divided up into smaller groups, they can tell a very different story.
Simpson’s paradox is a specific case of a wider class of problem known as the “ecological fallacy”, which says that you can’t always draw conclusions about individuals by looking at group data. A topical example: local authorities with above-average numbers of over-65s actually have a lower rate of death from Covid-19 than those with below-average numbers. But we know that older people are individually at greater risk. What’s going on seems to be that younger areas tend also to be denser, poorer, and more ethnically diverse, all of which drive risk up.
The apparent rise of the R value seems to be something like that. According to Edmunds, the rise is not because lockdown isn’t working (“it’s not that people are going about and mixing more”), but that it is working. There are, he says, separate epidemics in the community, and in care homes and hospitals.
“We had a very wide-scale community epidemic,” he told the committee, “and when we measured the R it was primarily the community epidemic. But that’s been brought down: the lockdown has worked, breaking chains of transmission in the community … now if you measure the R it’s being dominated by care homes and hospitals.”
Let’s imagine that we had two epidemics, of equal size, one in the community and one in care homes. Say 1,000 people are infected in each, and in the community each person on average infects two people, while in the care homes on average each person infects three. The total R is 2.5[1].
But now imagine you lock down and reduce both the R and the number of people infected, but by more in the community than in the care homes. Say that now there are 100 people infected in the community, and they each pass it on to an average of one person; and there are 900 people infected in the care homes, and they pass it on to an average of 2.8 people.
Now your average R is 2.62[2]; it’s gone up! But — just as with the Berkeley graduate students above — when you divide up the data into its constituent parts, it’s actually gone down in each category.
I don’t know the numbers, but according to Edmunds something like this has gone on in the real world. The collapse in the number of people with and passing on the disease in the community means that now the epidemic in care homes is a much greater share of the average. And that means, even though the R in care homes hasn’t gone up, the average R in total has, because the average in care homes was higher to start with.
To be clear: this doesn’t mean that everything is fine, or that we’ve won, or anything. “The thing that worries me is that it might be the overall R that matters,” says Kevin McConway, an emeritus professor of statistics at the Open University, who helped me understand these numbers. It’s not that the epidemics in the community and in care homes and hospitals are truly separate, islands cut off from each other — they’re interlinked, so if the disease spreads in care homes it can reinfect those of us outside it.
Edmunds said as much to the Science and Technology Committee: “Strictly speaking you have one R: there’s one epidemic and linked sub-epidemics; the epidemic in hospitals is not completely separate from the one in the community.” But to understand how it works, you need to look in this more granular fashion: the overall R is not much use on its own.
And while it doesn’t mean that we’ve won, it certainly shouldn’t be taken to mean that the British population has been lax in its approach to lockdown. Compliance has been very high, much higher than modellers anticipated.
But it does show that simple numbers can hide more complex stories. They feed, for instance, into modelling. One simple model is the SIR (susceptible, infected, recovered) model, where you assume everyone just interacts at random, mixing uniformly like molecules in a gas; but if the epidemics in care homes and the community behave very differently, then those models might give out very misleading numbers.
That’s why models such as the Imperial one try to simulate human behaviour to some degree; the extent to which it got that right is far from clear, but it was at least trying. Some more simple models that went around the internet did not. McConway, a statistician not a modeller, is profoundly wary of those: “I know enough [about modelling] to say I wouldn’t touch it because I’m not an expert; I see people getting it wrong in ways that I can recognise, whereas I’d get it wrong in ways I don’t recognise.” These subtle misunderstandings can drive major errors.
We’ve seen examples of this throughout the crisis. Early on, people (Donald Trump, notably) paid an awful lot of attention to the case numbers; but the case numbers didn’t really tell us how many people had the disease, just how many of them had been tested. And people have tried to place countries in a league table of death rates, but that’s not particularly informative either (although that’s not to say comparisons are entirely useless). Trying to boil down this messy, complicated situation to single numbers and saying whether they’re good or bad is rarely a good idea.
The really key thing, which I keep coming back to, is just how much uncertainty there is. “Modelling is bloody hard,” says McConway. “Prediction is bloody hard. The map is not the territory. We’ll know what’s happened when it’s happened.” Even something as apparently simple as the R value has to be treated with immense caution.
[1] ((1,000*2)+(1,000*3))/2000=2.5
[2] ((100*1)+(900*2.8))/1000=2.62
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe more of these hits pieces I see pop up all across the more I am inclined to see this crusty old champagne socialist as correct that he is a victim of a campaign backed by the lobby. Nobody whined when The Wall came out over four decades ago and Waters was mocking the extreme right in movie form.
Yes, why the sudden urge to overthrow him now? The Wall is over forty years old and its theme was fascism. I believe we are living in a time where people assume that by discussing something distasteful then by default you automatically are that something, much like professors who teach nineteenth-century literature and are then branded as racist when reading out the n-word from a Twain novel.
“Nobody whined when The Wall came out over four decades ago and Waters was mocking the extreme right in movie form.”
When The Wall came out there was an actual wall keeping people locked into totalitarian states. Now the shrillest, most totalitarian voices come from the Waters-aligned wing of the Labour Party. The irony would be sweet if it weren’t so bitter.
Wright? Richard Wright? Where’s the disclaimer that you’re Waters’ old band mate? Full disclosure, etc. And being dead’s no excuse.
Yes I largely agree and believe his intention is to criticise Israel’s foreign policy, but floating a large inflatable pig with a star of david on it during concerts? What the hell was he thinking? He should have chosen a symbol evocative of those policies (like some army sign?) not one that’s been used to represent Jews as a race..
I guess you missed the part about antisemitism.
Instead of worrying why so many people experess anti-Semitic sentinents–and many do–it will be incumbent upon the Jews to ask the question why this phenomenon persists. As Freud said, there is no effect without a cause. What is causing this perpetual pandemic?
They’re a convenient scapegoat. I suspect most people don’t even know why they’re antisemetic.
A certain part of the middle class like to blame some group for their under achievement according to their exalted opinion of their abilities and worth to society.
They’re a convenient scapegoat. I suspect most people don’t even know why they’re antisemetic.
A certain part of the middle class like to blame some group for their under achievement according to their exalted opinion of their abilities and worth to society.
Instead of worrying why so many people experess anti-Semitic sentinents–and many do–it will be incumbent upon the Jews to ask the question why this phenomenon persists. As Freud said, there is no effect without a cause. What is causing this perpetual pandemic?
We didn’t say or do anything to discourage Waters’ weirdness because we did not know better, and we did not know him better.
I loathe it when rock artists like Bono or Waters’ friend “Have a Cigar “Roy Harper hold forth on self righteous politics, and mistake undying fan love as vindication. And Waters definitely has elements of this. But on the Wall, the character who becomes the fascist in In the Flesh part 2 is loathsome precisely because he picks on Jews and black people dismissing them as “riff raff into the room”. This is surely a character who stands in sharp contrast to everything Waters is aiming at, which is one who ends up without barriers to others; who has teared down the wall.
Yes, why the sudden urge to overthrow him now? The Wall is over forty years old and its theme was fascism. I believe we are living in a time where people assume that by discussing something distasteful then by default you automatically are that something, much like professors who teach nineteenth-century literature and are then branded as racist when reading out the n-word from a Twain novel.
“Nobody whined when The Wall came out over four decades ago and Waters was mocking the extreme right in movie form.”
When The Wall came out there was an actual wall keeping people locked into totalitarian states. Now the shrillest, most totalitarian voices come from the Waters-aligned wing of the Labour Party. The irony would be sweet if it weren’t so bitter.
Wright? Richard Wright? Where’s the disclaimer that you’re Waters’ old band mate? Full disclosure, etc. And being dead’s no excuse.
Yes I largely agree and believe his intention is to criticise Israel’s foreign policy, but floating a large inflatable pig with a star of david on it during concerts? What the hell was he thinking? He should have chosen a symbol evocative of those policies (like some army sign?) not one that’s been used to represent Jews as a race..
I guess you missed the part about antisemitism.
We didn’t say or do anything to discourage Waters’ weirdness because we did not know better, and we did not know him better.
I loathe it when rock artists like Bono or Waters’ friend “Have a Cigar “Roy Harper hold forth on self righteous politics, and mistake undying fan love as vindication. And Waters definitely has elements of this. But on the Wall, the character who becomes the fascist in In the Flesh part 2 is loathsome precisely because he picks on Jews and black people dismissing them as “riff raff into the room”. This is surely a character who stands in sharp contrast to everything Waters is aiming at, which is one who ends up without barriers to others; who has teared down the wall.
The more of these hits pieces I see pop up all across the more I am inclined to see this crusty old champagne socialist as correct that he is a victim of a campaign backed by the lobby. Nobody whined when The Wall came out over four decades ago and Waters was mocking the extreme right in movie form.
Roger Waters illustrates the truth of the Horseshoe Theory. Communism really is fascism. It’s that simple.
Nothing is that simple. With the possible exception of you, Dickie.
Where have you been “Thorax”? We’ve missed you.
It really is that simple. Just like you, Rubber.
Look. Rubber. Roger Walters is avowedly of the Corbynite left. He’s also an anti-semite, as you yourself rightly say in another comment. I’m sure you will agree on these two things:-
(i) The Corbynite left, where not avowedly communist as some of it is, shares affinities with and has sympathies for communism;
(ii) Anti-semitism is to say the least a significant marker of the presence of fascism.
I think it’s also safe to say, Rubber, that Roger Waters is merely an exemplar, and that his left-wing fascism is pervasive throughout a significant minority if not the majority of the Corbynite left.
So if your accusation is merely one of hyperbole or guilt by association, or imprecision, guilty as charged, Rubber. I just happen to think that “communism is fascism” captures the underlying essence of the matter, even if I could have put the matter more precisely, e.g. “Roger Waters typifies the fascism of the Corbynite left”.
Where have you been “Thorax”? We’ve missed you.
It really is that simple. Just like you, Rubber.
Look. Rubber. Roger Walters is avowedly of the Corbynite left. He’s also an anti-semite, as you yourself rightly say in another comment. I’m sure you will agree on these two things:-
(i) The Corbynite left, where not avowedly communist as some of it is, shares affinities with and has sympathies for communism;
(ii) Anti-semitism is to say the least a significant marker of the presence of fascism.
I think it’s also safe to say, Rubber, that Roger Waters is merely an exemplar, and that his left-wing fascism is pervasive throughout a significant minority if not the majority of the Corbynite left.
So if your accusation is merely one of hyperbole or guilt by association, or imprecision, guilty as charged, Rubber. I just happen to think that “communism is fascism” captures the underlying essence of the matter, even if I could have put the matter more precisely, e.g. “Roger Waters typifies the fascism of the Corbynite left”.
Nothing is that simple. With the possible exception of you, Dickie.
Roger Waters illustrates the truth of the Horseshoe Theory. Communism really is fascism. It’s that simple.
There are a number of heavy claims in this item about what Waters thinks, but they aren’t linked to any source material. Yes, this certainly comes off as a hit piece. UnHerd can do better.
There are a number of heavy claims in this item about what Waters thinks, but they aren’t linked to any source material. Yes, this certainly comes off as a hit piece. UnHerd can do better.
Oh great, Unherd has started publishing hit-pieces from nobodies on musicians who hold unpopular opinions. Guess it’s time to reconsider my subscription.
Thank you for expressing your opinion freely. I disagree. RW does not hold unpopular opinions he uses his platform to scream hatred based on total falsehoods. He is a sworn enemy of truth and peace. RW is screaming “fire” in crowded theatres. Jew hatred is a real thing. His tirades embolden and encourage attacks on Jews. Fact.
Separating the artist from his views does not apply here as they are one and the same thing. This article deserves its place in Unherd. It reports clearly how RW uses the platform his music has given him and the varied reactions of those who are not sickened enough by his bile spewing to adulate his performance.
It is fascinating to read the justifications the acolytes give for continuing to give his vile platform support.
You (and a few others) seem to have difficulty distinguishing attitudes to jews and zionism
Opposing the actions (not the existence) of the state of Israel and supporting the rights of Palestinians to their own homeland does not make one an anti-semite. Many do indeed seem to have difficulty distinguishing these two notions.
Opposing the actions (not the existence) of the state of Israel and supporting the rights of Palestinians to their own homeland does not make one an anti-semite. Many do indeed seem to have difficulty distinguishing these two notions.
Certainly agree with these well-stated views. Waters’ right to scream his opposition to Israel’s policies and actions towards the Palestinians is a given but calling into question that country’s right to exist — as he does — must be roundly condemned. As said, such tirades assuredly encourage attacks on Jews.
You (and a few others) seem to have difficulty distinguishing attitudes to jews and zionism
Certainly agree with these well-stated views. Waters’ right to scream his opposition to Israel’s policies and actions towards the Palestinians is a given but calling into question that country’s right to exist — as he does — must be roundly condemned. As said, such tirades assuredly encourage attacks on Jews.
See ya.
Bye, Bye.
Thank you for expressing your opinion freely. I disagree. RW does not hold unpopular opinions he uses his platform to scream hatred based on total falsehoods. He is a sworn enemy of truth and peace. RW is screaming “fire” in crowded theatres. Jew hatred is a real thing. His tirades embolden and encourage attacks on Jews. Fact.
Separating the artist from his views does not apply here as they are one and the same thing. This article deserves its place in Unherd. It reports clearly how RW uses the platform his music has given him and the varied reactions of those who are not sickened enough by his bile spewing to adulate his performance.
It is fascinating to read the justifications the acolytes give for continuing to give his vile platform support.
See ya.
Bye, Bye.
Oh great, Unherd has started publishing hit-pieces from nobodies on musicians who hold unpopular opinions. Guess it’s time to reconsider my subscription.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that protest is under attack and being labelled as an anti semite is par for the course.
I have attended Roger’s concerts for decades including This Is Not A Drill last year and I simply do not understand what this woman is saying. Of course he is opinionated, it’s who he is and his audience understands this but anti semitic because he is passionate about the plight of ordinary, powerless Palestinians!! It’s become an easy slur to lob at anyone.
No, antisemitic because he loves conspiracy theories about Jewish cabals controlling the world. 5hays pretty much the definition of antisemitism.
You may be a stopped clock, Rubber, but once a day your time comes round to get something right, and once in a blue moon you actually seize the opportunity. It is like the flower in the desert, which blooms one morning every century.
You may be a stopped clock, Rubber, but once a day your time comes round to get something right, and once in a blue moon you actually seize the opportunity. It is like the flower in the desert, which blooms one morning every century.
No, antisemitic because he loves conspiracy theories about Jewish cabals controlling the world. 5hays pretty much the definition of antisemitism.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that protest is under attack and being labelled as an anti semite is par for the course.
I have attended Roger’s concerts for decades including This Is Not A Drill last year and I simply do not understand what this woman is saying. Of course he is opinionated, it’s who he is and his audience understands this but anti semitic because he is passionate about the plight of ordinary, powerless Palestinians!! It’s become an easy slur to lob at anyone.
You know our days are numbered when even mega-rich rock stars brandish bogus victim credentials.
I haven’t listened to Roger’s music that he’s made since he left Floyd (and tried to prevent those he’d left behind from continuing). It may well be that I’ve missed a treat, but there’s lots of great music that I’m still discovering, so I’ll probably survive.
While I don’t mind what a performer’s views are, I can’t help thinking it better to let the songs do the talking and save the sloganeering for when you’re having a drink with indulgent friends.
Whilst being entitled to their views, the idea that musicians are any more politically savvy than anyone else is ridiculous. The MSM pander to their views because they’re famous, but anyone who’d be influenced by them is a halfwit.
The most egregious example is, of course, Bono, friend of popes and invited to the WEF. FFS
And Kanye West.
And Kanye West.
Whilst being entitled to their views, the idea that musicians are any more politically savvy than anyone else is ridiculous. The MSM pander to their views because they’re famous, but anyone who’d be influenced by them is a halfwit.
The most egregious example is, of course, Bono, friend of popes and invited to the WEF. FFS
I haven’t listened to Roger’s music that he’s made since he left Floyd (and tried to prevent those he’d left behind from continuing). It may well be that I’ve missed a treat, but there’s lots of great music that I’m still discovering, so I’ll probably survive.
While I don’t mind what a performer’s views are, I can’t help thinking it better to let the songs do the talking and save the sloganeering for when you’re having a drink with indulgent friends.
You know our days are numbered when even mega-rich rock stars brandish bogus victim credentials.
“Few fans willing to discuss his antisemitism”.
I have few fans willing to discuss my participation in the Rwanda genocide.
I guess this article is a consequence of commitment to free speech, but I find it hard to accept that @TanyaGold1 is a useful contributor.
“Few fans willing to discuss his antisemitism”.
I have few fans willing to discuss my participation in the Rwanda genocide.
I guess this article is a consequence of commitment to free speech, but I find it hard to accept that @TanyaGold1 is a useful contributor.
Cancellation (targeted de-platforming, ostracization, and boycotting, often using threats and violence, for ‘unorthodox’ or ‘controversial’ beliefs) – whether they’re left wing or right wing – is real, and it is a problem. But ranting like a paranoid schizophrenic about how you’re being ‘cancelled’ while performing at the O2 arena, one of Britain’s largest concert venues, and have a steady income from your millions of fans and listeners worldwide takes the mick a bit.
People opposing your beliefs does not inherently amount to cancellation, and since Israel is an extremely controversial topic, and Waters makes a conscious effort to go about the matter in a very brash way, there will of course be opposition – he’s a shock jock after all. Whether this opposition has a point or not is another matter, but this does not amount to a worldwide conspiracy to unperson him.
Perhaps we should have seen it coming that the ultra-successful would eventually co-opt the term to make it look like there’s a conspiracy against them when confronted with any opposition.
Cancellation (targeted de-platforming, ostracization, and boycotting, often using threats and violence, for ‘unorthodox’ or ‘controversial’ beliefs) – whether they’re left wing or right wing – is real, and it is a problem. But ranting like a paranoid schizophrenic about how you’re being ‘cancelled’ while performing at the O2 arena, one of Britain’s largest concert venues, and have a steady income from your millions of fans and listeners worldwide takes the mick a bit.
People opposing your beliefs does not inherently amount to cancellation, and since Israel is an extremely controversial topic, and Waters makes a conscious effort to go about the matter in a very brash way, there will of course be opposition – he’s a shock jock after all. Whether this opposition has a point or not is another matter, but this does not amount to a worldwide conspiracy to unperson him.
Perhaps we should have seen it coming that the ultra-successful would eventually co-opt the term to make it look like there’s a conspiracy against them when confronted with any opposition.
“I’m not sure how many Corbynites can afford the O2”
Really? Tanya has a tendency to be a bit snide.
A bit?
A bit?
“I’m not sure how many Corbynites can afford the O2”
Really? Tanya has a tendency to be a bit snide.
Everything is anti-Semite if you question anything! Trying call him a conspiracist, racist, this only happens when either the journalist is a young inexperienced uni grad, or when there is truth and the establishment need to try and push people down. I was at this show and I can tell you most of this article is utter nonsense! This guy is questioning strong and powerful governments, trying to better the lives of those who cannot speak! So easy to put slur on his character, but the real racist is the journalist who completely ignores Palestinian plight to be free and free humanly.
Everything is anti-Semite if you question anything! Trying call him a conspiracist, racist, this only happens when either the journalist is a young inexperienced uni grad, or when there is truth and the establishment need to try and push people down. I was at this show and I can tell you most of this article is utter nonsense! This guy is questioning strong and powerful governments, trying to better the lives of those who cannot speak! So easy to put slur on his character, but the real racist is the journalist who completely ignores Palestinian plight to be free and free humanly.
Something always worth remembering about Roger Waters and his followers. When “Rare protests erupt[ed] against Hamas’ 12-year rule over Gaza,” the theme of the protests was “I want to live with dignity.”
That was March 19th, 2019.
Roger Waters and Jeremy Corbyn maintained a stoic silence that day, not so much as mentioning the Palestinians again until after Gaza’s rulers had brutalized the peaceful protesters back into submission.
Something always worth remembering about Roger Waters and his followers. When “Rare protests erupt[ed] against Hamas’ 12-year rule over Gaza,” the theme of the protests was “I want to live with dignity.”
That was March 19th, 2019.
Roger Waters and Jeremy Corbyn maintained a stoic silence that day, not so much as mentioning the Palestinians again until after Gaza’s rulers had brutalized the peaceful protesters back into submission.
The insane defenestration of Roger Waters is a good example of the Right using the tactics of the Woke to cancel a dissenter.
Roger Waters is a socialist who supports the Palestinians, BDS movement, and Jeremy Corbyn. He is against fascism and all other forms of tyranny, the policies of the current Israeli government and most importantly the war in Ukraine. This does not make him an antisemite but the people who are against the things he is for must call him one to silence him. It is so much easier to just cancel someone than engage with their ideas and allow debate. It is easier to convince yourself that he mustn’t be allowed to express his ideas because people might start agreeing with him. He is a famous rock star, and he might influence people. He must be stopped.
So, use guilt by association and ridiculous distortions of his ideas, gin up hysterical outrage and every time he says Israel substitute Jew to turn him into a villain. Then you don’t have to talk about the occupation of the West Bank, the war in Ukraine and the devastation that neo-liberalism has wrought.
There is no difference between what supporters of Israel are doing to Roger Waters and what trans-activist have done to JK Rowling.
Ideas, Woke or otherwise, aren’t the problem, the stifling of debate and suppression of dissent is.
There’s a contradiction there in your description of Waters’ views: history has shown that being a socialist is supporting tyranny. State control of commerce/finance/industry, which is what socialism is, necessarily involves tyranny. One can be deluded, call oneself a “socialist” and fancy that one is opposed to all forms of tyranny, but that is a delusion. Perhaps Waters suffers from this delusion, perhaps not, but objectively, if he’s a socialist, he supports tyranny.
He definitely suffers from this delusion
He definitely suffers from this delusion
There’s a contradiction there in your description of Waters’ views: history has shown that being a socialist is supporting tyranny. State control of commerce/finance/industry, which is what socialism is, necessarily involves tyranny. One can be deluded, call oneself a “socialist” and fancy that one is opposed to all forms of tyranny, but that is a delusion. Perhaps Waters suffers from this delusion, perhaps not, but objectively, if he’s a socialist, he supports tyranny.
The insane defenestration of Roger Waters is a good example of the Right using the tactics of the Woke to cancel a dissenter.
Roger Waters is a socialist who supports the Palestinians, BDS movement, and Jeremy Corbyn. He is against fascism and all other forms of tyranny, the policies of the current Israeli government and most importantly the war in Ukraine. This does not make him an antisemite but the people who are against the things he is for must call him one to silence him. It is so much easier to just cancel someone than engage with their ideas and allow debate. It is easier to convince yourself that he mustn’t be allowed to express his ideas because people might start agreeing with him. He is a famous rock star, and he might influence people. He must be stopped.
So, use guilt by association and ridiculous distortions of his ideas, gin up hysterical outrage and every time he says Israel substitute Jew to turn him into a villain. Then you don’t have to talk about the occupation of the West Bank, the war in Ukraine and the devastation that neo-liberalism has wrought.
There is no difference between what supporters of Israel are doing to Roger Waters and what trans-activist have done to JK Rowling.
Ideas, Woke or otherwise, aren’t the problem, the stifling of debate and suppression of dissent is.
I saw Waters’ Radio KAOS tour back in ‘80 something. See, I was really there .
And he went into an onstage political diatribe of some sort back then as well. Such behavior has always been his weakness.
We do well to remember this is the man who spit on a heckler during a Montreal show; which was the genesis of The Wall. His story, not mine. The man comes as advertised: great artist; and surely a bit of a moron.
I saw Waters’ Radio KAOS tour back in ‘80 something. See, I was really there .
And he went into an onstage political diatribe of some sort back then as well. Such behavior has always been his weakness.
We do well to remember this is the man who spit on a heckler during a Montreal show; which was the genesis of The Wall. His story, not mine. The man comes as advertised: great artist; and surely a bit of a moron.
Roger Waters didn’t like his own band, despite it being one of the greatest of the 20th century, and it’s members being, by most accounts, thoroughly decent people.
Roger Waters didn’t like his own band, despite it being one of the greatest of the 20th century, and it’s members being, by most accounts, thoroughly decent people.
The increasing insanity of Zionist propaganda is, hopefully, a harbinger of its demise.
The increasing insanity of Zionist propaganda is, hopefully, a harbinger of its demise.
“To inhabit something, to impersonate it, is to control it.”
Great definition of men cosplaying womanhood.
Brilliant observation.
Brilliant observation.
“To inhabit something, to impersonate it, is to control it.”
Great definition of men cosplaying womanhood.
“Waters believes that a Jewish conspiracy overthrew Jeremy Corbyn, fixed the result of the 2019 general election, and controls Keir Starmer”
Can the writer at least provide the evidence or source of the evidence for such a sweeping generalised statement?
“Waters believes that a Jewish conspiracy overthrew Jeremy Corbyn, fixed the result of the 2019 general election, and controls Keir Starmer”
Can the writer at least provide the evidence or source of the evidence for such a sweeping generalised statement?
Lolz was this comment thread curated by the BDS, PLO, or both. Roger Waters is a very talented multimillionaire t**t who unfortunately indulges in 19th Century Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy thinking. As for Palestinians, they did not exist as the modern construct “Palestinians” in ‘48 when the war their leaders continue to perpetuate was first lost; and their biggest problem is not the only functional democracy in that region and the repeated invitations to become part of it or create their own, but continuing to choose to be the puppets of Iranian and Arab instigators whose stated primary goal is genocide of all the Jews so they can take all that’s been built.
Lolz was this comment thread curated by the BDS, PLO, or both. Roger Waters is a very talented multimillionaire t**t who unfortunately indulges in 19th Century Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy thinking. As for Palestinians, they did not exist as the modern construct “Palestinians” in ‘48 when the war their leaders continue to perpetuate was first lost; and their biggest problem is not the only functional democracy in that region and the repeated invitations to become part of it or create their own, but continuing to choose to be the puppets of Iranian and Arab instigators whose stated primary goal is genocide of all the Jews so they can take all that’s been built.
I’ve long suspected his anti-semitism has something to do with his hatred of David Gilmour. It has become increasingly intense since Gilmour married Polly Samson.
As for the plodding and over-portentous music well, OK, if you like that sort of thing. But Donald Fagen he ain’t.
I’ve long suspected his anti-semitism has something to do with his hatred of David Gilmour. It has become increasingly intense since Gilmour married Polly Samson.
As for the plodding and over-portentous music well, OK, if you like that sort of thing. But Donald Fagen he ain’t.
A scattershot disparagement by Gold that shows Waters in a prevailingly cloudy-to-dim overall light. I admit I’m inclined to extend more latitude to an musician whose work I admire–as I do Waters and Pink Floyd–but I don’t think this ranting while claiming cancellation is a good act. Suffering some professional consequences for running your mouth too freely is not cancellation.
The outlook expressed in the lyrics of Roger Waters has always had brooding, even dystopian overtones. But he can’t expect much charity from his targets and detractors when he takes such denunciatory, extreme stances on Israel, etc. He’s doing ok for a 79-year-old rock act, but I think he’d be doing better for himself and the world if he kept more of his beliefs and feelings in musical form instead of turning shows partly into public rants about how he’s being silenced. Then again, that kind of old man versus the wicked world ranting–not totally distinct in tone from his younger act–may be gaining him a whole new audience, even as others distance themselves from the dark spectacle.
A scattershot disparagement by Gold that shows Waters in a prevailingly cloudy-to-dim overall light. I admit I’m inclined to extend more latitude to an musician whose work I admire–as I do Waters and Pink Floyd–but I don’t think this ranting while claiming cancellation is a good act. Suffering some professional consequences for running your mouth too freely is not cancellation.
The outlook expressed in the lyrics of Roger Waters has always had brooding, even dystopian overtones. But he can’t expect much charity from his targets and detractors when he takes such denunciatory, extreme stances on Israel, etc. He’s doing ok for a 79-year-old rock act, but I think he’d be doing better for himself and the world if he kept more of his beliefs and feelings in musical form instead of turning shows partly into public rants about how he’s being silenced. Then again, that kind of old man versus the wicked world ranting–not totally distinct in tone from his younger act–may be gaining him a whole new audience, even as others distance themselves from the dark spectacle.
“These cries have snowballed: the US government and Keir Starmer have pointed out Waters’s antisemitism.”
Well snowflakes at times can build up to snowballs!
“These cries have snowballed: the US government and Keir Starmer have pointed out Waters’s antisemitism.”
Well snowflakes at times can build up to snowballs!
Waters sounds like an old crank, a Rob Reiner spewing Meatheadisms on Twitter. But this article is nearly incoherent. What on Earth is meant by “Sylvia Plath’s “Daddy” for a 79-year-old rock star.” Is “Daddy” supposed to be a verb? The entire article reads like stream of consciousness with a dash of schizophrenia and Adderall.
I think she’s claiming that Waters’s “parodic fascism” is to him as Plath’s poem “Daddy” is to its author. Personally, I was more put off by Tanya Gold referring to her subject as “Rogers” twice in the first paragraph. :¬D
Re Tanya Gold – you can take the ‘journalist’ out of the Guardian but you can’t take the Guardian out of the ‘journalist’. Unherd can surely do better than this.
I think she’s claiming that Waters’s “parodic fascism” is to him as Plath’s poem “Daddy” is to its author. Personally, I was more put off by Tanya Gold referring to her subject as “Rogers” twice in the first paragraph. :¬D
Re Tanya Gold – you can take the ‘journalist’ out of the Guardian but you can’t take the Guardian out of the ‘journalist’. Unherd can surely do better than this.
Waters sounds like an old crank, a Rob Reiner spewing Meatheadisms on Twitter. But this article is nearly incoherent. What on Earth is meant by “Sylvia Plath’s “Daddy” for a 79-year-old rock star.” Is “Daddy” supposed to be a verb? The entire article reads like stream of consciousness with a dash of schizophrenia and Adderall.
Did not the author write a piece defending Woody Allen a while ago?
Poor Woody Allen has been attacked by anti Semites for years now
Poor Woody Allen has been attacked by anti Semites for years now
Did not the author write a piece defending Woody Allen a while ago?
As his psychoanalyst, you shouldn’t be disclosing this confidential stuff in an open journal, Tanya.
As his psychoanalyst, you shouldn’t be disclosing this confidential stuff in an open journal, Tanya.
You know, the first cancel culture heresy-level whisper campaign I ever intuited was by the Israeli lobby, 20 years ago. You weren’t allowed to criticize anything about Israel’s policies for fear of being morally responsible for the Holocaust. First time I read the slur of “self-hating Jew.” I heard plenty of thinly veiled racism at the time, without the gasping of sacrilege. But God forbid you suggest that “hurt people, hurt people,” that the Palestinians didn’t have anything to do with the Holocaust, that Germany should have given Bavaria to the Israel state, and that the Allies handing over the 1900-year-old lands of Palestinians to all Jews as penance for German atrocities was the grossest act of colonialist presumption.
As w/ critiques of contemporary anti-racism, I read the work of Black scholars as a check on my biases, as I’ve read the work & data reflecting hundreds of thousands of Jews who likewise are concerned about Zionist policies & the power of The Lobby. To treat any group as sacrosanct is to dehumanize them by another name. I refuse to do it, and thank God I stand w/ the many Jewish authors & activists who feel the same.
Who is this “You” that wasn’t allowed to criticise anything about Israel’s policies? Criticism of Israel, Zionism and Jewish influence in general has been going for decades regardless of accusations about Holocaust responsibility. Criticism of Palestinians though – now that looks like a real taboo area (for the Left in particular). Are they sacrosanct or do they just have ordinary run-of-the-mill victim status? Incidentally, I note that the “dehumanise” charge is often made by opponents of affirmative action with regard to blacks.
I gather from your tone that you are so well informed that we must not dare contradict you – but anyway: those black scholars you read and “the work & data reflecting hundreds of thousands of Jews”– could you be taking on board their biases?
Black scholars have no biases . And surely it’s racist to suggest otherwise .
There are many decent and upstanding black scholars, whom it is saddening to see traduced by the open and explicit racism of so-called “Black scholars”.
There are many decent and upstanding black scholars, whom it is saddening to see traduced by the open and explicit racism of so-called “Black scholars”.
He also capitalises “black”, so he’s obviously a woke racist. Thanks for dealing with this.
Black scholars have no biases . And surely it’s racist to suggest otherwise .
He also capitalises “black”, so he’s obviously a woke racist. Thanks for dealing with this.
Who is this “You” that wasn’t allowed to criticise anything about Israel’s policies? Criticism of Israel, Zionism and Jewish influence in general has been going for decades regardless of accusations about Holocaust responsibility. Criticism of Palestinians though – now that looks like a real taboo area (for the Left in particular). Are they sacrosanct or do they just have ordinary run-of-the-mill victim status? Incidentally, I note that the “dehumanise” charge is often made by opponents of affirmative action with regard to blacks.
I gather from your tone that you are so well informed that we must not dare contradict you – but anyway: those black scholars you read and “the work & data reflecting hundreds of thousands of Jews”– could you be taking on board their biases?
You know, the first cancel culture heresy-level whisper campaign I ever intuited was by the Israeli lobby, 20 years ago. You weren’t allowed to criticize anything about Israel’s policies for fear of being morally responsible for the Holocaust. First time I read the slur of “self-hating Jew.” I heard plenty of thinly veiled racism at the time, without the gasping of sacrilege. But God forbid you suggest that “hurt people, hurt people,” that the Palestinians didn’t have anything to do with the Holocaust, that Germany should have given Bavaria to the Israel state, and that the Allies handing over the 1900-year-old lands of Palestinians to all Jews as penance for German atrocities was the grossest act of colonialist presumption.
As w/ critiques of contemporary anti-racism, I read the work of Black scholars as a check on my biases, as I’ve read the work & data reflecting hundreds of thousands of Jews who likewise are concerned about Zionist policies & the power of The Lobby. To treat any group as sacrosanct is to dehumanize them by another name. I refuse to do it, and thank God I stand w/ the many Jewish authors & activists who feel the same.
““If you are one of those ‘I love Pink Floyd but I don’t like Roger’s politics’ people,” says an announcer, “you might do well to f**k off to the bar.” But they don’t.”
Probably just as well: there’d be few people left…
““If you are one of those ‘I love Pink Floyd but I don’t like Roger’s politics’ people,” says an announcer, “you might do well to f**k off to the bar.” But they don’t.”
Probably just as well: there’d be few people left…
I blame Syd Barrett…
I blame Syd Barrett…
Thank you Tanya, for this very good, balanced piece. Clearly Waters has a lot of loyal devotees who won’t hear a word said against him, but that is no justification for his repulsive views.
Thank you Tanya, for this very good, balanced piece. Clearly Waters has a lot of loyal devotees who won’t hear a word said against him, but that is no justification for his repulsive views.
Oh
Oh
Self-inflated commenters responding to this piece as if they were the subject of the piece and not Waters … triggered when someone mentions a whiff of antisemitism, convinced it couldn’t *possibly* apply to them.
Self-inflated commenters responding to this piece as if they were the subject of the piece and not Waters … triggered when someone mentions a whiff of antisemitism, convinced it couldn’t *possibly* apply to them.
So ya
Thought ya
Might like to
Go to the show.
To feel that warm thrill of confusion,
That space cadet glow.
I’ve got some bad news for you sunshine,
Pink isn’t well, he stayed back at the hotel
And they sent us along as a surrogate band
We’re gonna find out where you fans* really stand.
Are there any queers in the theater tonight?
Get them up against the wall!
There’s one in the spotlight, he don’t look right to me,
Get him up against the wall!
That one looks Jewish!
And that one’s a c**n!
Who let all of this riff-raff into the room?
There’s one smoking a joint,
And another with spots!
If I had my way,
I’d have all of you shot!
So ya
Thought ya
Might like to
Go to the show.
To feel that warm thrill of confusion,
That space cadet glow.
I’ve got some bad news for you sunshine,
Pink isn’t well, he stayed back at the hotel
And they sent us along as a surrogate band
We’re gonna find out where you fans* really stand.
Are there any queers in the theater tonight?
Get them up against the wall!
There’s one in the spotlight, he don’t look right to me,
Get him up against the wall!
That one looks Jewish!
And that one’s a c**n!
Who let all of this riff-raff into the room?
There’s one smoking a joint,
And another with spots!
If I had my way,
I’d have all of you shot!
I met Waters via his charming mother in law at the time Lady Jean Christie, some years ago: seemed alright if a tad dull…
I met Waters via his charming mother in law at the time Lady Jean Christie, some years ago: seemed alright if a tad dull…
Tanya Gold told lies about Corbyn and now she is telling lies about Waters.
Communism is fascism. Get over it.
Communism is fascism. Get over it.
Tanya Gold told lies about Corbyn and now she is telling lies about Waters.
Nobody cared what Roger Waters said until he questioned the official Russia – Ukraine narrative. Odd that.
Nobody cared what Roger Waters said until he questioned the official Russia – Ukraine narrative. Odd that.
You’ve lost the room, Tanya. It is no longer about bogus claims of anti-Semitism; the EHRC found all of two specific examples in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, and both of those are subject to judicial review. It is now about mostly bogus threats to free speech; nothing gets you a platform like being deplatformed. So Professor Arif Ahmed’s non-subscription to the IHRA Definition is seen as a positive advantage in the new Free Speech Tsar. Similarly, even The Times and the Daily Telegraph have given rave reviews to Roger Waters. The world moves on. Tanya Gold is a creature out of time.
You have the same name as a gentleman who served a prison sentence for malicious communication and perverting the course of justice. Would you care to comment?
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19262308.blogger-jailed-repeated-online-harassment/
You have the same name as a gentleman who served a prison sentence for malicious communication and perverting the course of justice. Would you care to comment?
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19262308.blogger-jailed-repeated-online-harassment/
You’ve lost the room, Tanya. It is no longer about bogus claims of anti-Semitism; the EHRC found all of two specific examples in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, and both of those are subject to judicial review. It is now about mostly bogus threats to free speech; nothing gets you a platform like being deplatformed. So Professor Arif Ahmed’s non-subscription to the IHRA Definition is seen as a positive advantage in the new Free Speech Tsar. Similarly, even The Times and the Daily Telegraph have given rave reviews to Roger Waters. The world moves on. Tanya Gold is a creature out of time.
Enough anti semites on the comments below. Corbynites too probably.
Enough anti semites on the comments below. Corbynites too probably.
People who make waves inevitably attract attention. However Roger has got it wrong, I say – the state of jewish protectionism has got well out of hand and merits the resistance given !
People who make waves inevitably attract attention. However Roger has got it wrong, I say – the state of jewish protectionism has got well out of hand and merits the resistance given !