Role Of SAGE To Be Reviewed

[221129]

their role should have been as advisers whose advise is balanced against other considerations, but their role has actually been as policy makers whose policies are blindly followed with no consideration of anything else.

Which is basically what their role already is. It's not their fault that we have an inept and incompetent government that have no ability to think for themselves.

 

[Dent]

Which is basically what their role already is.

Not really, the government has been blindly doing whatever they demand without any thought for any other considerations, when they should have been taking what they say as only advice and balancing it against everything else. That effectively makes SAGE unelected decision makers, not advisers.

Which is basically what their role already is. It's not their fault that we have an inept and incompetent government that have no ability to think for themselves.

Who said anything about it being "their fault"? The point is that the government have allowed their role to effectively become policy makers, when they are supposed to be only advisers. That is what needs to be reviewed.

 

[221129]

Not really, the government has been blindly doing whatever they demand without any thought for any other considerations, when they should have been taking what they say as only advice and balancing it against everything else. That effectively makes SAGE unelected decision makers, not advisers.

Then that is down to the government. The government should be weighing up the SAGE advice and balancing it against everything else. However it is the government that are too inept to do so. You can't really put that on SAGE.

 

[DB]

Which is basically what their role already is. It's not their fault that we have an inept and incompetent government that have no ability to think for themselves.

It is their fault that they've gone stirring it with the media on a number of occasions to try to put pressure on the government to do what SAGE wanted, though!

 

[221129]

The point is that the government have allowed their role to effectively become policy makers, when they are supposed to be only advisers. That is what needs to be reviewed.

Which again is down to the government. Not SAGE. If anything it is the government roles and decisions that need reviewing. SAGE are giving them the advice (rightly or wrongly) as is their job and making recommendations. They have no powers to force these decisions

 

[Dent]

Then that is down to the government. The government should be weighing up the SAGE advice and balancing it against everything else. However it is the government that are too inept to do so. You can't really put that on SAGE.

Again, who is "putting that on SAGE"? The point which you keep missing is that the role of SAGE has been allowed to become policy makers when they should be advisers, and for that reason needs to be reviewed.

Which again is down to the government. Not SAGE.

Yet again, who said anything was "down to SAGE"?

If anything it is the government roles and decisions that need reviewing.

Indeed it is, and one of those decisions was to allow the role of SAGE to become policy makers rather than advisers, and hence why the role of SAGE needs to be reviewed.

 

[Bantamzen]

Which again is down to the government. Not SAGE. If anything it is the government roles and decisions that need reviewing. SAGE are giving them the advice (rightly or wrongly) as is their job and making recommendations. They have no powers to force these decisions

SAGE were given front and centre stage, so as a result they become as culpable as the government. They could have course declined to be part of the public facing part of the pandemic, but they chose to be part of it. And so they will have to be put under the microscope as the government will.

 

[Gadget88]

Saga should never have a say in politics again.

 

[35B]

Not really, the government has been blindly doing whatever they demand without any thought for any other considerations, when they should have been taking what they say as only advice and balancing it against everything else. That effectively makes SAGE unelected decision makers, not advisers.



Who said anything about it being "their fault"? The point is that the government have allowed their role to effectively become policy makers, when they are supposed to be only advisers. That is what needs to be reviewed.

Which is that the politicians elected to make decisions have delegated/abdicated their responsibility to the expert advisers they've appointed to advise them. That issue is NOT with SAGE, but with the politicians.

The change to SAGE also needs to ban SAGE members from talking to the media. Many of them have used their presence on SAGE as a way of getting airtime in the media and presumably as a result making some money out of the pandemic. That of course means that they have a financial benefit in prolonging lockdowns as long as possible, which will likely cloud their judgement.

What is that financial interest? How is their personal bank balance enhanced by lockdown?

Various scientists, of various degrees of credibility, have spoken freely about what is/is not the right policy for Covid - some are in official advisory roles, others not. It's not so long since David Nutt resigned - with widespread support from the scientific community - from his role with the Home Office because he wasn't allowed to speak his mind; do we only want yes men on SAGE?

What about Dr Iqbal Adil? An NHS consultant and whistle blower who posted to YouTube and was then suspended by the GMC for not towing the line? He was also to be seen taking part in some of the London protests. Then there is Dr Mike Yeaden - former head of respiratory medicine at Pfizer - again effectively silenced. Latest person to speak out appears to be Dr Geert Vanden Bosche who has written on the vaccine in the past few days. https://www.deblauwetijger.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Geert-vanden-Bossche-2.pdf

What I find VERY worrying is there has never been an open debate on Covid. We are made to accept the government's decisions based on SAGE. It should be a mix of SAGE, the general scientific community, the legal community and then general public.

All solutions should be advice only and not dictatorial and all we have seen is the majority of the government and opposition parties (with a few notable exceptions) behaving like the soviet communist party and supressing dissent and people who will not obey the rules, as I won't being treated as dissidents.

Just not acceptable. I will be 62 this year and never in my lifetime have I ever come across such a divisive issue as the approach to Covod.

SAGE advise government, and ministers take decisions. That's always been the role of expert advisors, and now should be no different. You also mention some specific scientists. As it happens, I saw this piece on Geert Vanden Bossche recently, which suggests both that his credentials on vaccines are limited, and that the views he's presenting are far from disinterested. To quote the final paragraph:

You know what? I think that grifters recognize fellow grifters, and Frei recognized that Dr. Vanden Bossche is stoking fear of existing COVID-19 vaccines to produce a sales rationale for his own NK-based vaccine, just as Andrew Wakefield stoked fear of the MMR in order to support his own measles vaccine. Grifters of a feather, and all that, and, of course, grifters gonna grift. Always.

 

[Dent]

Which is that the politicians elected to make decisions have delegated/abdicated their responsibility to the expert advisers they've appointed to advise them. That issue is NOT with SAGE, but with the politicians.

Again, where did I or anyone else claim that the issue is "with SAGE"? The issue is the role of SAGE, in particular the way in which politicians have allowed that role to become policy makers rather than advisers. I have already pointed this out a number of times, but it seems to always fall on deaf ears.

SAGE advise government, and ministers take decisions. That's always been the role of expert advisors, and now should be no different.

That is what should happen, but not what is actually happening. What has actually been allowed to happen is that SAGE have been allowed to become policy makers, which is why their role needs to be reviewed.

 

[kristiang85]

I think the problem with SAGE scientists not having limitations on their publicity is that they are all academics under pressure from their institutions to get funding in. The more visible they are, the more clout their funding applications get - just imagine all the interviews and articles they are now adding to their CVs, as well as the exposure from having their names repeated everywhere in both mainstream and social media.

So there is incentive for them to spout off at any given opportunity, the more vocal and the right side of controversial the better. And now that REF funding (which is how the goverment calculates what funding universities get) is based on social media metrics as well, there is even more incentive to get as many followers as possible, which is done by exposure. So universities are certainly egging them on to get out there, added to the benefits of being a 'name' to potential external funders.

The only way to stop it would be for the government to state that involvement with SAGE would mean a media blackout, but a lot of the top academics and institutions will simply deprioritise their involvement in it.

I can't see how that can be resolved now that genie is out of the bottle.

 

[liam456]

Various scientists, of various degrees of credibility, have spoken freely about what is/is not the right policy for Covid - some are in official advisory roles, others not. It's not so long since David Nutt resigned - with widespread support from the scientific community - from his role with the Home Office because he wasn't allowed to speak his mind; do we only want yes men on SAGE?

I find that this is spot on. Just because it's a scientific opinion you or the government disagree doesn't mean it's deserving of being rubbished, Devi Sridhar, e.t.c and all...

 

[43096]

What is that financial interest? How is their personal bank balance enhanced by lockdown?

I would think that would be obvious. I think it is safe to say they are not doing these media appearances for nothing - they will be paid for them. It therefore follows that the longer this goes on the more they will be asked to appear so the more they will earn. It is therefore in their interests to (try to) prolong lockdown as long as possible.

 

[DB]

The only way to stop it would be for the government to state that involvement with SAGE would mean a media blackout, but a lot of the top academics and institutions will simply deprioritise their involvement in it.

No doubt members of SAGE are paid for being part of it, and it's something pretty substantial on any CV - I don't think there would be a shortage of leading academics willing to do it.

And it needn't be a complete media blackout - what is needed is something to prevent them trying to force their agenda all the time using the media: they are only looking at one aspect of the situation and seem completely oblivious to the other side of the coin.

 

[Ianno87]

Saga should never have a say in politics again.

But what about all those old people who want holidays?

 

[35B]

Again, where did I or anyone else claim that the issue is "with SAGE"? The issue is the role of SAGE, in particular the way in which politicians have allowed that role to become policy makers rather than advisers. I have already pointed this out a number of times, but it seems to always fall on deaf ears.



That is what should happen, but not what is actually happening. What has actually been allowed to happen is that SAGE have been allowed to become policy makers, which is why their role needs to be reviewed.

Precisely my point - the issue is not with SAGE, or it's role, but with the politicians and how they've deferred to SAGE. Whatever you or I think about how they've done this, I'm willing to bet that the record will show that ministers have received advice from SAGE which they've used to help make decisions; I'm not sure that I'd want to encourage them to ignore scientific advice to prove they're not in hock to scientists.

I would think that would be obvious. I think it is safe to say they are not doing these media appearances for nothing - they will be paid for them. It therefore follows that the longer this goes on the more they will be asked to appear so the more they will earn. It is therefore in their interests to (try to) prolong lockdown as long as possible.

I think the problem with SAGE scientists not having limitations on their publicity is that they are all academics under pressure from their institutions to get funding in. The more visible they are, the more clout their funding applications get - just imagine all the interviews and articles they are now adding to their CVs, as well as the exposure from having their names repeated everywhere in both mainstream and social media.

So there is incentive for them to spout off at any given opportunity, the more vocal and the right side of controversial the better. And now that REF funding (which is how the goverment calculates what funding universities get) is based on social media metrics as well, there is even more incentive to get as many followers as possible, which is done by exposure. So universities are certainly egging them on to get out there, added to the benefits of being a 'name' to potential external funders.

The only way to stop it would be for the government to state that involvement with SAGE would mean a media blackout, but a lot of the top academics and institutions will simply deprioritise their involvement in it.

I can't see how that can be resolved now that genie is out of the bottle.

Many academics do media appearances for nowt - the questions of profile and prestige are important, often more so than the quite small appearance fees they might get. I well recall my uncle's fury a few years ago at his departmental secretary delaying telling him of an opportunity for an unpaid appearance on Radio 4 in his area of expertise (a humanities subject, so not relevant to this topic)

Similarly, the scientists who attend SAGE are independent experts, called in because of their expertise in the matter at hand. As my example of David Nutt shows, trying to make them subject to the restrictions on civil servants raises challenging issues of autonomy.

I also ask whether the issue you raise is with SAGE, or the composition of SAGE. Epidemiologists of various opinions were not backward in coming forward, though we've heard less of the likes of Heneghan and Sridhar since their rather optimistic projections have been proven false; would you have had them subject to the same restrictions had they been part of SAGE?

 

[Dent]

Precisely my point - the issue is not with SAGE, or it's role, but with the politicians and how they've deferred to SAGE.

"How they've deferred to SAGE." is another way of saying the role they have given SAGE, so it is the role of SAGE which needs to be reviewed.

I'm not sure that I'd want to encourage them to ignore scientific advice to prove they're not in hock to scientists.

Who has advocated that they should "ignore scientific advice"? That sounds like yet another strawman.

The point is that the advice from SAGE should have been treated as advice, and balanced against considerations of economics, mental health, human rights etc., not blindly followed with no thought for anything else.

 

[43096]

Many academics do media appearances for nowt - the questions of profile and prestige are important, often more so than the quite small appearance fees they might get. I well recall my uncle's fury a few years ago at his departmental secretary delaying telling him of an opportunity for an unpaid appearance on Radio 4 in his area of expertise (a humanities subject, so not relevant to this topic)

So it's about ego. Whatever, they're enjoying their 15 minutes of fame and are keen to extend it as long as possible.

Similarly, the scientists who attend SAGE are independent experts, called in because of their expertise in the matter at hand. As my example of David Nutt shows, trying to make them subject to the restrictions on civil servants raises challenging issues of autonomy.

I also ask whether the issue you raise is with SAGE, or the composition of SAGE. Epidemiologists of various opinions were not backward in coming forward, though we've heard less of the likes of Heneghan and Sridhar since their rather optimistic projections have been proven false; would you have had them subject to the same restrictions had they been part of SAGE?

Both. They are there to provide advice - and it is advice as inevitably they are not experts on, nor do they have knowledge of, the entire picture - not to be prostituting themselves around the media. I think it is totally incompatible for them to be doing both, particularly if the Government ignores their advice (there is far more to the decision making than what the scientists say) and their doing the rounds to bleat about it with dire warnings of the apocalypse. My other problem with SAGE is that there are too many of them.

 

[35B]

"How they've deferred to SAGE." is another way of saying the role they have given SAGE, so it is the role of SAGE which needs to be reviewed.

Splitting hairs a bit, but if an enquiry reports back and suggests anything other than that SAGE have provided advice which ministers have then used to inform their decisions, I'll be gobsmacked. The role of SAGE is a red herring; it is the approach of ministers that has mattered.

So it's about ego. Whatever, they're enjoying their 15 minutes of fame and are keen to extend it as long as possible.


Both. They are there to provide advice - and it is advice as inevitably they are not experts on, nor do they have knowledge of, the entire picture - not to be prostituting themselves around the media. I think it is totally incompatible for them to be doing both, particularly if the Government ignores their advice (there is far more to the decision making than what the scientists say) and their doing the rounds to bleat about it with dire warnings of the apocalypse. My other problem with SAGE is that there are too many of them.

I find those charges against scientists quite revealing of those that make them, and how they would behave. However, setting that aside, my last question remains unanswered - would you have those opposed to the current government approach subject to the same restrictions? I've seen people on here praise one of the Scottish advisors who is anti-lockdown, while lambasting pro-lockdown advisors who've gone to the press. Is it one rule for all?

 

[Dent]

Splitting hairs a bit, but if an enquiry reports back and suggests anything other than that SAGE have provided advice which ministers have then used to inform their decisions, I'll be gobsmacked.

If the report says that then it will be wrong, because we know that that is not what has actually been happening.

The role of SAGE is a red herring; it is the approach of ministers that has mattered.

The issue with the approach of ministers is that they have allowed to role of SAGE to become policy makers rather than advisers. That is not a "red herring" at all, it is the central issue.

 

[bramling]

I do wonder whether by having an entity called SAGE, you're setting up an organisation which can develop a collective viewpoint that carries a considerable amount of weight with the public. The effect of this may be to create a very visible, immovable force of opinion - almost a competing cabinet, which makes it difficult for the Government to juggle the competing viewpoints and positions of expertise that it needs to.

Obviously the Government still needs to call on that expertise, however I wonder whether this wouldn't be better done using smaller, more ad-hoc groups of experts assembled as and when the need arises.

One one level, yes. The presence of SAGE has allowed the government to adopt the “follow the science” policy, which is flawed on a number of levels, not least because there’s no such thing as the science as a singular viewpoint. Where we’ve got caught out is Boris has had to make decisions, and has baulked at the responsibility.

I don’t think the attitude of SAGE has helped, but it was for the government to make the final decisions. The likes of Whitty will always have had one eye on how to save their own skin, as they know they will be dumped by Boris at the first opportunity when there’s a need for a scapegoat. So if it were me I’d probably play safe too.

The real problem is Hancock is keen but hopelessly out of his depth, Boris seems incapable of looking at things holistically, and the rest of the cabinet is a weak shambles. Oh, and there’s no opposition...

 

[Yew]

I feel there has been an over-reliance on the opinions of clinical practitioners in epidemiological matters, and the primary epidemiologist, is Prof Fergurson, and his mystical model of doom.

 

[35B]

If the report says that then it will be wrong, because we know that that is not what has actually been happening.



The issue with the approach of ministers is that they have allowed to role of SAGE to become policy makers rather than advisers. That is not a "red herring" at all, it is the central issue.

Whether for good or bad, ministers have largely followed the advice given by SAGE. Whether they've given enough weight to other advice, and whether they've used enough of their own judgement, are valid questions. But it is ministers who have made the decisions on policy, even if they have followed the advice of SAGE to the letter.

I also recall SAGE giving advice back in the autumn that was not followed - notably around whether to implement a "circuit breaker" lockdown. So any analysis needs to consider the actual roles they've played.

I feel there has been an over-reliance on the opinions of clinical practitioners in epidemiological matters, and the primary epidemiologist, is Prof Fergurson, and his mystical model of doom.

Is Ferguson a clinical practitioner? I thought his background was non-medical, and his expertise mathematical rather than clinical?

 

[DB]

Whether for good or bad, ministers have largely followed the advice given by SAGE. Whether they've given enough weight to other advice, and whether they've used enough of their own judgement, are valid questions. But it is ministers who have made the decisions on policy, even if they have followed the advice of SAGE to the letter.

I also recall SAGE giving advice back in the autumn that was not followed - notably around whether to implement a "circuit breaker" lockdown. So any analysis needs to consider the actual roles they've played.

Is Ferguson a clinical practitioner? I thought his background was non-medical, and his expertise mathematical rather than clinical?

Do you recall the economists who officially advise the government going shouting to the media regularly? Or the mental health experts which presumaby also advise them?

If they did, I must have missed it - the shouting has been entirely from those who always want more restrictions and are absolutely fixated on one single issue.

 

[Yew]

Is Ferguson a clinical practitioner? I thought his background was non-medical, and his expertise mathematical rather than clinical?

Perhaps I should have phrased that better, 'and of the few epidemiologists they have'.

 

[kristiang85]

Many academics do media appearances for nowt - the questions of profile and prestige are important, often more so than the quite small appearance fees they might get. I well recall my uncle's fury a few years ago at his departmental secretary delaying telling him of an opportunity for an unpaid appearance on Radio 4 in his area of expertise (a humanities subject, so not relevant to this topic)

Yes they don't get paid directly, but the exposure they get helps their profile and likelihood of getting more research funding in.

 

[35B]

Do you recall the economists who officially advise the government going shouting to the media regularly? Or the mental health experts which presumaby also advise them?

If they did, I must have missed it - the shouting has been entirely from those who always want more restrictions and are absolutely fixated on one single issue.

I recall advisers to the government expressing their opinions publicly for decades - indeed, I recall one such (Alan Walters) leading to the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. David Nutt was forced out of a role for publicly opposing government policy; other members of that committee resigned because of the way the government were limiting their ability to give full and frank advice.

There's an observation bias at work here; we're focusing on one issue and patterns of advice on that issue, and then noticing that particular pattern. Further, the media interest in particular policy areas means that some advisors will attract particular interest, something that will further skew perception about who are or are not speaking. I haven't paid attention to who attend SAGE or equivalent bodies; nor do I have visibility of who have been approached for and declined requests to comment. In Scotland, Mark Woolhouse (one of the Scottish SAGE advisors) has been publicly vocal (and praised on here for it) about the need to wind down restrictions; should he have been required to be silent?

 

[initiation]

I also recall SAGE giving advice back in the autumn that was not followed - notably around whether to implement a "circuit breaker" lockdown.

And both Wales and Scotland implemented one followed slightly later by England - remember this was in order to 'save Christmas'.

Yet here we are - cases still went up, Christmas gatherings were severely restricted, another longer lockdow was required and the overall situation was not materially better.

Does anyone in the media ever question why SAGE's advice when followed doesn't seem to work?

 

[43096]

I find those charges against scientists quite revealing of those that make them, and how they would behave.

Not really. I'm pointing out that the members of SAGE are humans like everyone else and have their own motivations and weaknesses. If you think they are above all that, then look at the behaviour of a certain member of SAGE last year.

However, setting that aside, my last question remains unanswered - would you have those opposed to the current government approach subject to the same restrictions? I've seen people on here praise one of the Scottish advisors who is anti-lockdown, while lambasting pro-lockdown advisors who've gone to the press. Is it one rule for all?

One rule for all. If you're advising the Government, then bar them from the media.

 

[35B]

Not really. I'm pointing out that the members of SAGE are humans like everyone else and have their own motivations and weaknesses. If you think they are above all that, then look at the behaviour of a certain member of SAGE last year.


One rule for all. If you're advising the Government, then bar them from the media.

That's at least consistent.