July 13, 2023 - 5:50pm
Politicians provide the “capacity to ask the ‘daft laddie’ question”, levelling up and housing secretary Michael Gove said on Thursday afternoon during an appearance at the Covid inquiry. The cabinet minister was speaking about the Government’s preparation for the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as its cooperation with scientific experts to devise lockdown and pandemic management policies, in a hearing in which he also stated that “politicians are amateurs.”
“When we are engaging with professionals and experts, what we bring is not deep subject expertise. What we bring is the capacity to ask the ‘daft laddie’ question,” Gove said. He suggested that this ignorance can be a virtue. “Sometimes it is only when someone asks that question that we find out that the emperor has no clothes,” he said, “or the pandemic preparedness plan has a huge hole in the middle.”
During the lockdown period, Gove was an advocate for more stringent measures, but has since rowed back somewhat on this position. In the hearing room on Thursday, he claimed that “ultimately the pandemic that occurred was not a flu pandemic. It was one for which we were unprepared because few Western nations, if any Western nations, had anticipated the particular type of pandemic that Covid-19 was.”
Gove hinted at the pervasive influence of groupthink both in Whitehall and within the scientific community, with these groups combining to dictate Covid measures from early 2020. “There is a danger that people within a civil service hierarchy, or within a political culture, do not want to seem awkward,” he said. “They will not wish to be the person questioning their superior in front of another.” To tackle this problem, the levelling up secretary said that “ministers should be trained” in countering scientific groupthink, in preparation for future epidemics.
Gove even hinted at the possibility of considering origin theories for the virus which go against popular consensus, and that ministers should be briefed about these rather than simply accepting a particular, albeit majority, viewpoint. “Most people believe that this virus emerged in the wet market, but some suggest it might be a lab leak,” he said. “Where is the evidence? We need to have a certain degree of tolerance for the fact that we can’t have certainty.”
The “lab leak theory” has gone from a fringe position to one considered, even if not fully endorsed, by UK cabinet ministers, American federal departments and Chinese government doctors. Although Gove has not commented directly on the origins of the virus before, former health secretary Matt Hancock suggested that a Chinese lab leak was to blame in his memoir of the pandemic, published at the end of last year.
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.
SubscribeI get the lack of knowledge early in the pandemic, but certainly by the end of the summer of 2020, there were plenty of credible experts disagreeing with lockdowns, the origin story, masks etc. They chose not to seriously consider heterodox viewpoints.
The medical experts didn’t appreciate the potential side effects of the treatment they merrily prescribed. Why would they, they had zero experience of using it. Does anyone really expect academics to think outside their field? It’s exactly this kind of broader analysis we need smart politicians to provide. Economic, social, psychological consequences. The necessary information was out there. Printing money causes inflation. Stopping people working and interacting for six months or more makes them highly likely not to return to work (ask any occupational physician). They were all weak and will now attempt to hide the fact. Also it was obviously a lab leak unless there was clear evidence of another explanation.
But as soon as anyone suggested that the lockdown measures would have serious financial and social consequences and that these should be weighed in the balance they were met with a deafening chorus for the entire press corps of he wans to kill granny and he is putting money above human life
Occam has been telling us it was a lab leak for at least two years.
Has the establishment denial of this something to do with the potential legal ramifications of the fact that the negligence of researchers working for the US government may be responsible for the deaths of millions and a global social and economic disaster. I wonder.
Spot on…. the other big casualty is, or ought to be, the WHO which came across as a China sock puppet.
But as soon as anyone suggested that the lockdown measures would have serious financial and social consequences and that these should be weighed in the balance they were met with a deafening chorus for the entire press corps of he wans to kill granny and he is putting money above human life
Occam has been telling us it was a lab leak for at least two years.
Has the establishment denial of this something to do with the potential legal ramifications of the fact that the negligence of researchers working for the US government may be responsible for the deaths of millions and a global social and economic disaster. I wonder.
Spot on…. the other big casualty is, or ought to be, the WHO which came across as a China sock puppet.
When politicians know less than an informed citizen who has time and the Internet then a new kind of democracy is needed.
I agree. I think the first panic was largely triggered (in the final days) by imagery from the Bergamo hospital showing it having gone from a very impressive hospital in a properous part of Italy to being in a state of utter collapse caused by the unmanageable tidal wave of patients arriving.
And that’s fair enough. These days it is almost always pictures that move the dial on public opinion. Then the whole mess of intersecting aspects came in, virologists, the benighted Imperial College modellers, ultra lock-downers and everything else.
But the key point is that , as you say, by mid summer things were becoming clearer and at we should certainly not have gone in for the 2nd lockdown, while extending the whole thing in 2021 was just worse again.
There are madcap anti-vaxxers… but many people against vaccinations had reasonable arguments. Both things can be true.
Our last problem was that our over adversarial media didn’t help, with every argument seen through the lenses of Brexit or Left/Right persuasions.
The medical experts didn’t appreciate the potential side effects of the treatment they merrily prescribed. Why would they, they had zero experience of using it. Does anyone really expect academics to think outside their field? It’s exactly this kind of broader analysis we need smart politicians to provide. Economic, social, psychological consequences. The necessary information was out there. Printing money causes inflation. Stopping people working and interacting for six months or more makes them highly likely not to return to work (ask any occupational physician). They were all weak and will now attempt to hide the fact. Also it was obviously a lab leak unless there was clear evidence of another explanation.
When politicians know less than an informed citizen who has time and the Internet then a new kind of democracy is needed.
I agree. I think the first panic was largely triggered (in the final days) by imagery from the Bergamo hospital showing it having gone from a very impressive hospital in a properous part of Italy to being in a state of utter collapse caused by the unmanageable tidal wave of patients arriving.
And that’s fair enough. These days it is almost always pictures that move the dial on public opinion. Then the whole mess of intersecting aspects came in, virologists, the benighted Imperial College modellers, ultra lock-downers and everything else.
But the key point is that , as you say, by mid summer things were becoming clearer and at we should certainly not have gone in for the 2nd lockdown, while extending the whole thing in 2021 was just worse again.
There are madcap anti-vaxxers… but many people against vaccinations had reasonable arguments. Both things can be true.
Our last problem was that our over adversarial media didn’t help, with every argument seen through the lenses of Brexit or Left/Right persuasions.
I get the lack of knowledge early in the pandemic, but certainly by the end of the summer of 2020, there were plenty of credible experts disagreeing with lockdowns, the origin story, masks etc. They chose not to seriously consider heterodox viewpoints.
We don’t need just the “daft laddie” question we need government to honestly listen to expertise that disagrees with the in-house majority. If he can’t see that censorship – for whatever reason – perverted the concensus of scientific opinion he is a buffoon. Anyway, I have read the UK Govt’s own Influenza / Respiratory Virus Pandemic Plan from a decade ? back and it clearly says masks will not work for the public, high performance respirators only work with specialised training in putting on/off/fit and in health environments.
Nonsense.
Not that I want to defend the pandemic response, but if you’re faced with making a decision on which you have little personal experience, 10 experts are suggesting one course of action compared to only a couple suggesting another, it would be a brave politician to go with the minority
Then, what exactly is the need for the politician to arbitrate the decision? Why not then just dispense with the politicians and just have a committee of the 12 experts, and they vote on the decision? And the BoE MPC works exactly like this. As does the governance model of the EU overall- the politicians are mere figureheads. And my question is, is this a good model of governance?
Because somebody has to be ultimately responsible. However it would take a brave person to ignore the experts if the scientific consensus was that not locking down would lead to 100’s of thousands of deaths.
And the answer is (or should be) a resounding “No!”
We pay politicians for their good judgment and commonsense; though unfortunately we frequently don’t get what we pay for. But trusting ‘experts’ should by now be regarded as the utmost folly. Just look at the ‘expert’ driven disaster that has been the response to Covid-19.
The response was largely influenced by one ‘expert’ with an extensive track record of wildly inaccurate predictions and a dodgy model. Where were the other experts and politicians questioning the reliance placed on this shaman?
The other experts produced the Great Barrington Declaration but they were disgustingly discredited, mocked and vilified. Of course they were right but their response didn’t fit the plan established a long time ago.
The other experts produced the Great Barrington Declaration but they were disgustingly discredited, mocked and vilified. Of course they were right but their response didn’t fit the plan established a long time ago.
We don’t just pay politicians, Kerry, we select them. Do we consider the candidates’ good judgement and common sense when we enter the voting booth or do we just put our X next to a party label?
The response was largely influenced by one ‘expert’ with an extensive track record of wildly inaccurate predictions and a dodgy model. Where were the other experts and politicians questioning the reliance placed on this shaman?
We don’t just pay politicians, Kerry, we select them. Do we consider the candidates’ good judgement and common sense when we enter the voting booth or do we just put our X next to a party label?
Because somebody has to be ultimately responsible. However it would take a brave person to ignore the experts if the scientific consensus was that not locking down would lead to 100’s of thousands of deaths.
And the answer is (or should be) a resounding “No!”
We pay politicians for their good judgment and commonsense; though unfortunately we frequently don’t get what we pay for. But trusting ‘experts’ should by now be regarded as the utmost folly. Just look at the ‘expert’ driven disaster that has been the response to Covid-19.
Yet this is precisely the job for which politicians are elected. And I don’t think it takes bravery to stand up for the idea that imprisoning people in their homes is opposed to the tradition of personal freedom throughout the Anglosphere.
If we want to live under a reign of technocratic kings, why bother with having a Parliament at all?
It’s easy for us to sit here and carp from the sidelines though, there’s no responsibility on our opinions. Hypothetically, if politicians had ignored the scientists and kept society open, and the fatality rate ended up quadruple what it did then we’d all be calling for their heads, regardless of whether we’d originally thought it was the right course of action. We’d all be lambasting them for ignoring the scientific consensus.
I think the What’s App files from Hancock show they were more interested in consulting opinion polls and following the lead from political leaders in other jurisdictions. It’s easier politically to follow the herd, even if you have grave suspicions the herd is absolutely wrong.
We see the exact same thing with net zero. No rational adult who has researched the issue thinks emission reduction targets will end global warming, or that the solution isn’t much more painful than the problem. Yet here we are.
That’s only half the issue. The pandemic response decision was like walking a tight rope. You can fall off either side. For crying out loud, this called for balanced arguments to be heard from all sides.
Instead, the uniform voice of scientists was completely orchestrated by a powerful cabal of Pharma, Tech, and the WEF, all seeing the opportunity for a massive takeover of free capitalism.
There was no balancing viewpoint allowed. Democracy failed.
I think the What’s App files from Hancock show they were more interested in consulting opinion polls and following the lead from political leaders in other jurisdictions. It’s easier politically to follow the herd, even if you have grave suspicions the herd is absolutely wrong.
We see the exact same thing with net zero. No rational adult who has researched the issue thinks emission reduction targets will end global warming, or that the solution isn’t much more painful than the problem. Yet here we are.
That’s only half the issue. The pandemic response decision was like walking a tight rope. You can fall off either side. For crying out loud, this called for balanced arguments to be heard from all sides.
Instead, the uniform voice of scientists was completely orchestrated by a powerful cabal of Pharma, Tech, and the WEF, all seeing the opportunity for a massive takeover of free capitalism.
There was no balancing viewpoint allowed. Democracy failed.
It’s easy for us to sit here and carp from the sidelines though, there’s no responsibility on our opinions. Hypothetically, if politicians had ignored the scientists and kept society open, and the fatality rate ended up quadruple what it did then we’d all be calling for their heads, regardless of whether we’d originally thought it was the right course of action. We’d all be lambasting them for ignoring the scientific consensus.
A big part of the problem is the narrow band of experts they choose to listen to. If you only consult health experts, you only get one perspective. What about economists, sociologists, labour groups, small business associations etc…
I recall President Trump saying exactly that. You can’t imagine the derision heaped upon him by the MSM for that.
Maybe he should have said I will only listen to Fauci and no one else. When they heap scorn on him for that, he could say you’re right, let’s consult with many others.
Maybe he should have said I will only listen to Fauci and no one else. When they heap scorn on him for that, he could say you’re right, let’s consult with many others.
You’re right in principle, but as has said repeatedly above, try telling the nation that a coalition of experts in economics (think 2008), sociologists, unions and corner shop owners thinks you should overrule the health experts and let the disease rip, as it’s only going to kill a few old folk. Even if the coalition had the right data and could demonstrate the strength of their forecast, 95% of the public would lynch the politician who overruled the ‘health experts’, however flakey their plan. The politicians have got used to the iron grip of the tabloid press on health issues and the religion of the NHS, too. They could have done better, certainly, but their options were limited and the pressure to conform under exponentially increasing pressure of events was crippling.
Well, they did have behavioural psychologists on SAGE. The problem seems to be that they got rather hooked on making the population behave in whatever way they chose. Susan Michie, I’m looking at you!
I recall President Trump saying exactly that. You can’t imagine the derision heaped upon him by the MSM for that.
You’re right in principle, but as has said repeatedly above, try telling the nation that a coalition of experts in economics (think 2008), sociologists, unions and corner shop owners thinks you should overrule the health experts and let the disease rip, as it’s only going to kill a few old folk. Even if the coalition had the right data and could demonstrate the strength of their forecast, 95% of the public would lynch the politician who overruled the ‘health experts’, however flakey their plan. The politicians have got used to the iron grip of the tabloid press on health issues and the religion of the NHS, too. They could have done better, certainly, but their options were limited and the pressure to conform under exponentially increasing pressure of events was crippling.
Well, they did have behavioural psychologists on SAGE. The problem seems to be that they got rather hooked on making the population behave in whatever way they chose. Susan Michie, I’m looking at you!
Agree…but only somewhat… The politicians who would say “Hold on let’s get those Barrington Declaration scientists, Tom Heneghan, John Ioannides, Pierre Kory, Harvey Reisch, Dr Tess Lawrie, the folk from the Swedish Govt etc etc to make their cases” are rare.
I doubt it is a great proportional lack of 10 “other” experts is the scales were not loaded – there is a lack of freedom to express that view, making it seem an outlying position for brave fools.
Soft censorship “pour encourager les autres”.
Then, what exactly is the need for the politician to arbitrate the decision? Why not then just dispense with the politicians and just have a committee of the 12 experts, and they vote on the decision? And the BoE MPC works exactly like this. As does the governance model of the EU overall- the politicians are mere figureheads. And my question is, is this a good model of governance?
Yet this is precisely the job for which politicians are elected. And I don’t think it takes bravery to stand up for the idea that imprisoning people in their homes is opposed to the tradition of personal freedom throughout the Anglosphere.
If we want to live under a reign of technocratic kings, why bother with having a Parliament at all?
A big part of the problem is the narrow band of experts they choose to listen to. If you only consult health experts, you only get one perspective. What about economists, sociologists, labour groups, small business associations etc…
Agree…but only somewhat… The politicians who would say “Hold on let’s get those Barrington Declaration scientists, Tom Heneghan, John Ioannides, Pierre Kory, Harvey Reisch, Dr Tess Lawrie, the folk from the Swedish Govt etc etc to make their cases” are rare.
I doubt it is a great proportional lack of 10 “other” experts is the scales were not loaded – there is a lack of freedom to express that view, making it seem an outlying position for brave fools.
Soft censorship “pour encourager les autres”.
Not that I want to defend the pandemic response, but if you’re faced with making a decision on which you have little personal experience, 10 experts are suggesting one course of action compared to only a couple suggesting another, it would be a brave politician to go with the minority
We don’t need just the “daft laddie” question we need government to honestly listen to expertise that disagrees with the in-house majority. If he can’t see that censorship – for whatever reason – perverted the concensus of scientific opinion he is a buffoon. Anyway, I have read the UK Govt’s own Influenza / Respiratory Virus Pandemic Plan from a decade ? back and it clearly says masks will not work for the public, high performance respirators only work with specialised training in putting on/off/fit and in health environments.
Nonsense.
Gove is a master at evasiveness wrapped and camouflaged in buckets of false good manners and charm.
He knows too much GroupThink already likely part of Inquiry outcome and sharp enough to get with that tide now. But in truth there is v little here of substance.
Most of us recognise the challenge of the early decisions and can accept some of those may have proven wrong but at the time entirely understandable. But Lockdown 2 – after ‘eat out’ policy, failure to prepare schools, and lessons from Lockdown 1 ? Gove is silent.
This is 100% right.
This is 100% right.
Gove is a master at evasiveness wrapped and camouflaged in buckets of false good manners and charm.
He knows too much GroupThink already likely part of Inquiry outcome and sharp enough to get with that tide now. But in truth there is v little here of substance.
Most of us recognise the challenge of the early decisions and can accept some of those may have proven wrong but at the time entirely understandable. But Lockdown 2 – after ‘eat out’ policy, failure to prepare schools, and lessons from Lockdown 1 ? Gove is silent.
Michael Gove says “When we are engaging with professionals and experts, what we bring is not deep subject expertise. What we bring is the capacity to ask the ‘daft laddie’ question”.
And I would challenge the value of this ‘capacity’ with a thought experiment. Imagine you are an amateur chess enthusiast kibbitzing the game of a chess grandmaster. You are both equally bright people. In a complex position you and the grandmaster are both considering a the next move. You think of some possible moves and decide upon one which you think is the best one. The grandmaster makes their move, and it is not one which you had even considered. You don’t understand why they made the move they did. You question the grandmaster, and discover, of the half dozen candidate moves you both considered, you have only one move in common. The grandmaster explains their thinking, and you realise you didn’t envisage pretty much any of the possibilities they were considering. So, do you still think you want to suggest your move as perhaps the best one? Do you think there is in fact better than one chance in a thousand that the move you suggest will turn out to be the best one? Or another example: do you think you might want to give advice to Lewis Hamilton on how to best tackle Vale corner?
The point I’m trying to make is one about expertise breath vs expertise depth. With deeply technical inputs, neither politicians nor bureaucrats have the expertise to make those decisions and invariably fall back on the inputs of advisors and experts. The problem is, the numbers of such offloaded decisions is multiplying – and I reckon beneath all the buzz and halabaloo of cabinet meetings and reports and committees, politicians end up mere ciphers following simple decision making based on lots of other people’s inputs: nothing a sophisticated enough algorithm wouldn’t be able to do. An long and elaborate dance of the’Spreadsheet Phils’, and what exactly are you for, what good do you think you are doing?
No amount of scientific or academic training qualifies one to be an “expert” in morals. In fact, it strikes me as a plausible hypothesis that the more such training one has, the less likely it is that one is able to exercise sound, consistent, and courageous moral judgment.
This is so true. I fell out with a scientist friend of mine last year who was an avid supporter of lockdowns and mass vaccinations. When I mentioned Florida and Sweden, he had nothing to say. When I mentioned the fact that Covid primarily killed the elderly and so it was wrong to put pressure on young people to get jabbed, he had nothing to say. He looked at Covid from an extremely narrow point of view with no thought given to the issues of civil liberties, informed consent, the economic damage caused by lockdowns, etc. And as for morals: in his private life, the guy simply doesn’t have any. We need to stop worshipping scientists: they’re only human, they have a narrow focus and they’re just as susceptible to groupthink and corruption as everyone else.
This is so true. I fell out with a scientist friend of mine last year who was an avid supporter of lockdowns and mass vaccinations. When I mentioned Florida and Sweden, he had nothing to say. When I mentioned the fact that Covid primarily killed the elderly and so it was wrong to put pressure on young people to get jabbed, he had nothing to say. He looked at Covid from an extremely narrow point of view with no thought given to the issues of civil liberties, informed consent, the economic damage caused by lockdowns, etc. And as for morals: in his private life, the guy simply doesn’t have any. We need to stop worshipping scientists: they’re only human, they have a narrow focus and they’re just as susceptible to groupthink and corruption as everyone else.
I agree with your analysis. I would suggest that the key to such a situation is to have a small number of experts (perhaps only one) who you can trust to (a) understand the input of the other experts, and (b) present an unbiased summary of that wider input to the non-technical decision makers with the costs and benefits clearly set forth. I know, easier said than done.
For example, in WWII, Churchill relied on Lord Cherwell, a distinguished physicist albeit an odd character, to summarize and explain technical reports relating to new weapons and the like.
My impression is the scientific experts became politicized, and biased, earlier in the pandemic even than the politicians.
But perhaps none of this matters in the context of a pandemic. People panic, one country (e.g., China) take extraordinary measures (e.g., lockdowns), and the politicians in other countries follow suit because they don’t want to be accused of not doing enough to protect people. A global act of political expediency. In that situation, the “science” becomes just another tool to justify the government’s actions after the fact.
Your third paragraph captures exactly the situation; and one can extend it across many fields (so-called ‘climate science’ being one such). We should by now have learned not to trust ‘scientific experts.’
That politicization was evident in the fact that no one from the European scientific community piped up to challenge the rubbish that Merkel and Macron came out with about the Astra Zeneca vaccine.
And to my eyes, this happened, not because the European scientific community was unaware that what their politicians were saying was garbage, but because the structures created around their livelihoods had been designed to create communities of scientists who could be tacitly pressured into staying in line. The same can be seen in China but in a somewhat different way. The US model is different because there the pressure is generated by a brutal commercial fight between large conglomerates (Pfizer etc) – all the while with individuals within those organisations maintaining a hypocritical veneer of uber progressivism, as for example Silicon Valley does.
It is a moot point if the European and Chinese models lead to poor quality science in aggregate. The US/UK darwinian commercial fight model works at some level because it clearly generates vast quantities of money, but I doubt it’s a good model either in the round.
Churchill had the perfect observation – experts should be on tap, not on top. Politicians have the responsibility to make the judgement after weighing the advice. And the responsibity to pick competent advisers. Unfortunately, it looks as if most lack the ability and academic background to do either.
Churchill of course went along with Cherwell’s view on the value of population area bombing for far too long and semi-recognised that later. So even the great man was prone to placing too much faith in too few experts occasionally. That said actually one reason he is a ‘great’ is he accommodated and valued some people who told him he was wrong quite alot – AlanBrooke.
I would suggest our politicians are short on real-life work experience and common sense, not formal education.
Churchill of course went along with Cherwell’s view on the value of population area bombing for far too long and semi-recognised that later. So even the great man was prone to placing too much faith in too few experts occasionally. That said actually one reason he is a ‘great’ is he accommodated and valued some people who told him he was wrong quite alot – AlanBrooke.
I would suggest our politicians are short on real-life work experience and common sense, not formal education.
Your third paragraph captures exactly the situation; and one can extend it across many fields (so-called ‘climate science’ being one such). We should by now have learned not to trust ‘scientific experts.’
That politicization was evident in the fact that no one from the European scientific community piped up to challenge the rubbish that Merkel and Macron came out with about the Astra Zeneca vaccine.
And to my eyes, this happened, not because the European scientific community was unaware that what their politicians were saying was garbage, but because the structures created around their livelihoods had been designed to create communities of scientists who could be tacitly pressured into staying in line. The same can be seen in China but in a somewhat different way. The US model is different because there the pressure is generated by a brutal commercial fight between large conglomerates (Pfizer etc) – all the while with individuals within those organisations maintaining a hypocritical veneer of uber progressivism, as for example Silicon Valley does.
It is a moot point if the European and Chinese models lead to poor quality science in aggregate. The US/UK darwinian commercial fight model works at some level because it clearly generates vast quantities of money, but I doubt it’s a good model either in the round.
Churchill had the perfect observation – experts should be on tap, not on top. Politicians have the responsibility to make the judgement after weighing the advice. And the responsibity to pick competent advisers. Unfortunately, it looks as if most lack the ability and academic background to do either.
The ‘politician/buyer’ has a set of criteria – low cost, fast, easy, minimal side-effects, high quality etc. The expert’s job is to provide options – and in complex projects may be chains of experts each with options. If you only get a one solution option, then you’re being sold something…
I think you’ve missed the point. It’s not that the expertise of the epidemiologists was imperfect, it’s that the anticipated medical outcomes weren’t weighed against the possible economic, educational and social outcomes.
Non-expert politicians should be the right people to do that as they’re supposed to be able to reflect the wishes of the people. But the media didn’t allow those broad considerations to be put before the public.
I agree that…but would say also that, especially in the beginning, the choice seemed to be between a chaotic collapse of the whole NHS or maybe something that really may well not turn out ALL that bad.
But the penalties for being wrong seemed wholly on the side of underestimating the threat.
ie to be seen to ‘let the bodies pile high’.
I think the key moment of getting it wrong wasn’t the first lockdown and the whole March/April/May 2020 period, but the 2nd lockdown later that year. That was definitely and unmitigatedly the wrong course to take.
I agree that…but would say also that, especially in the beginning, the choice seemed to be between a chaotic collapse of the whole NHS or maybe something that really may well not turn out ALL that bad.
But the penalties for being wrong seemed wholly on the side of underestimating the threat.
ie to be seen to ‘let the bodies pile high’.
I think the key moment of getting it wrong wasn’t the first lockdown and the whole March/April/May 2020 period, but the 2nd lockdown later that year. That was definitely and unmitigatedly the wrong course to take.
No amount of scientific or academic training qualifies one to be an “expert” in morals. In fact, it strikes me as a plausible hypothesis that the more such training one has, the less likely it is that one is able to exercise sound, consistent, and courageous moral judgment.
I agree with your analysis. I would suggest that the key to such a situation is to have a small number of experts (perhaps only one) who you can trust to (a) understand the input of the other experts, and (b) present an unbiased summary of that wider input to the non-technical decision makers with the costs and benefits clearly set forth. I know, easier said than done.
For example, in WWII, Churchill relied on Lord Cherwell, a distinguished physicist albeit an odd character, to summarize and explain technical reports relating to new weapons and the like.
My impression is the scientific experts became politicized, and biased, earlier in the pandemic even than the politicians.
But perhaps none of this matters in the context of a pandemic. People panic, one country (e.g., China) take extraordinary measures (e.g., lockdowns), and the politicians in other countries follow suit because they don’t want to be accused of not doing enough to protect people. A global act of political expediency. In that situation, the “science” becomes just another tool to justify the government’s actions after the fact.
The ‘politician/buyer’ has a set of criteria – low cost, fast, easy, minimal side-effects, high quality etc. The expert’s job is to provide options – and in complex projects may be chains of experts each with options. If you only get a one solution option, then you’re being sold something…
I think you’ve missed the point. It’s not that the expertise of the epidemiologists was imperfect, it’s that the anticipated medical outcomes weren’t weighed against the possible economic, educational and social outcomes.
Non-expert politicians should be the right people to do that as they’re supposed to be able to reflect the wishes of the people. But the media didn’t allow those broad considerations to be put before the public.
Michael Gove says “When we are engaging with professionals and experts, what we bring is not deep subject expertise. What we bring is the capacity to ask the ‘daft laddie’ question”.
And I would challenge the value of this ‘capacity’ with a thought experiment. Imagine you are an amateur chess enthusiast kibbitzing the game of a chess grandmaster. You are both equally bright people. In a complex position you and the grandmaster are both considering a the next move. You think of some possible moves and decide upon one which you think is the best one. The grandmaster makes their move, and it is not one which you had even considered. You don’t understand why they made the move they did. You question the grandmaster, and discover, of the half dozen candidate moves you both considered, you have only one move in common. The grandmaster explains their thinking, and you realise you didn’t envisage pretty much any of the possibilities they were considering. So, do you still think you want to suggest your move as perhaps the best one? Do you think there is in fact better than one chance in a thousand that the move you suggest will turn out to be the best one? Or another example: do you think you might want to give advice to Lewis Hamilton on how to best tackle Vale corner?
The point I’m trying to make is one about expertise breath vs expertise depth. With deeply technical inputs, neither politicians nor bureaucrats have the expertise to make those decisions and invariably fall back on the inputs of advisors and experts. The problem is, the numbers of such offloaded decisions is multiplying – and I reckon beneath all the buzz and halabaloo of cabinet meetings and reports and committees, politicians end up mere ciphers following simple decision making based on lots of other people’s inputs: nothing a sophisticated enough algorithm wouldn’t be able to do. An long and elaborate dance of the’Spreadsheet Phils’, and what exactly are you for, what good do you think you are doing?
The more important, necessary research we need to do now (partly because it is widely neglected) is not how could we have saved more lives (there is a huge amount of ongoing work done there already, and consensus is emerging), but what of the side effects of lockdowns – economic, social, medical, psychological, political?
The more important, necessary research we need to do now (partly because it is widely neglected) is not how could we have saved more lives (there is a huge amount of ongoing work done there already, and consensus is emerging), but what of the side effects of lockdowns – economic, social, medical, psychological, political?
Gove was a lockdown maniac and he shouldn’t be let off the hook for it. He’s one of those people who’s so clever they are, in fact, quite stupid.
Gove was a lockdown maniac and he shouldn’t be let off the hook for it. He’s one of those people who’s so clever they are, in fact, quite stupid.
One of the chief things I value about Unherd quality of informed opinion and analysis, and balanced polite discussion by so many of the commentators, not least a band of regulars who crop up frequently.
Of course, there are some bores! And there are a few people who seem to be driven by the need to be combative for the sake of it; and others who are rude, unpleasant and even insulting. But they are relatively few and diminish themselves in the public sphere, rather their targets.
So, thank you everyone who fits the description in the first paragraph above. I really do appreciate your engagement and contributions!
One of the chief things I value about Unherd quality of informed opinion and analysis, and balanced polite discussion by so many of the commentators, not least a band of regulars who crop up frequently.
Of course, there are some bores! And there are a few people who seem to be driven by the need to be combative for the sake of it; and others who are rude, unpleasant and even insulting. But they are relatively few and diminish themselves in the public sphere, rather their targets.
So, thank you everyone who fits the description in the first paragraph above. I really do appreciate your engagement and contributions!
No-one seems to have raised the question of the role of the mainstream media in bringing about the disastrous global overreaction to Covid. I think it’s high time we started questioning the responsibility and competence of the Fourth Estate for the groupthink currently affecting society worldwide. What better place than UnHerd! I don’t know what the answers are but I suspect we’ll have to conclude we get the media we deserve.
No-one seems to have raised the question of the role of the mainstream media in bringing about the disastrous global overreaction to Covid. I think it’s high time we started questioning the responsibility and competence of the Fourth Estate for the groupthink currently affecting society worldwide. What better place than UnHerd! I don’t know what the answers are but I suspect we’ll have to conclude we get the media we deserve.
Such a repulsive little man…
Such a repulsive little man…
What is this “popular consensus” that Covid came from the wet market? Two thirds of Americans think it came from a lab. There is no such “consensus”, except among those in with vested interests in science, government and the media. And what if there WERE a consensus? Does Gove just go with the consensus? Can’t he make a judgement of his own? Isn’t he one of the brainy ones?
Good grief! These useless, cowardly people.