maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,984
|
Post by maxque on Nov 2, 2020 18:26:16 GMT
I do have concerns about a potential vaccine - I think getting one will take longer than we expect even now, I think a lot of people might refuse it which would make it harder for us to ensure enough people to get it, and I'm almost certain the distribution process will be a cock up (no doubt one that gets Dido Harding or another one of Boris' mates very rich). But with the number of vaccines in development, we'd have to be incredibly unlucky to end up without a working one at all. Yes. But I'm talking about where we are now, which is that we don't have one. So I don't think policy should make the assumption that will be the inevitable outcome. That's all. Policy should be developped from the most likely outcome, not the outcome that is the most similar to now.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,151
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 2, 2020 18:34:34 GMT
Yes. But I'm talking about where we are now, which is that we don't have one. So I don't think policy should make the assumption that will be the inevitable outcome. That's all. Policy should be developped from the most likely outcome, not the outcome that is the most similar to now. No, don't agree. Policy should reflect the current situation - as no-one can say what the likely outcome is. You have an outcome you hope for which I share. I'm not an anti- vaxxer. But it is not something anyone can guarantee
|
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by cj on Nov 2, 2020 18:43:24 GMT
Policy should be developped from the most likely outcome, not the outcome that is the most similar to now. No, don't agree. Policy should reflect the current situation - as no-one can say what the likely outcome is. You have an outcome you hope for which I share. I'm not an anti- vaxxer. But it is not something anyone can guarantee More a strategy for writing soap operas where every occurrence is a new drama than governance of a state of million of people reliant on the outcomes of long term planning. Of course you are not alone in that view, pension crisis, what pensions crisis?
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,151
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 2, 2020 18:50:34 GMT
No, don't agree. Policy should reflect the current situation - as no-one can say what the likely outcome is. You have an outcome you hope for which I share. I'm not an anti- vaxxer. But it is not something anyone can guarantee More a strategy for writing soap operas where every occurrence is a new drama than governance of a state of million of people reliant on the outcomes of long term planning. Of course you are not alone in that view, pension crisis, what pensions crisis? You can't plan and assume that something will definitely happen. Obviously others have much greater faith in God Science than I do.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,984
|
Post by maxque on Nov 2, 2020 18:51:51 GMT
More a strategy for writing soap operas where every occurrence is a new drama than governance of a state of million of people reliant on the outcomes of long term planning. Of course you are not alone in that view, pension crisis, what pensions crisis? You can't plan and assume that something will definitely happen. Obviously others have much greater faith in God Science than I do. Of course, a plan must exist about the "no vaccine case", but it should be a back-up plan, at it's not a likely one at the moment.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,151
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 2, 2020 18:52:35 GMT
You can't plan and assume that something will definitely happen. Obviously others have much greater faith in God Science than I do. Of course, a plan must exist about the "no vaccine case", but it should be a back-up plan, at it's not a likely one at the moment. The opposite.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,984
|
Post by maxque on Nov 2, 2020 18:56:00 GMT
Of course, a plan must exist about the "no vaccine case", but it should be a back-up plan, at it's not a likely one at the moment. The opposite. Could you just admit you want that because it would lead to the outcome you so desire?
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 2, 2020 18:56:34 GMT
There is certain to be multiple vaccines available in the new year, although their effectiveness and longevity remains to be seen. The idea that we should ignore the probability of an effective vaccine is absurd. My main worry remains that the best vaccines may be late, and difficult therefore to be properly assessed. Still I will be happy to have multiple vaccines, and most of us will be the same.
This is why circuit breakers now are a good idea. If people choose not to be vaccinated and suffer serious illness as a result, well that will be a case for a communal Darwin award.
|
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by cj on Nov 2, 2020 19:17:14 GMT
More a strategy for writing soap operas where every occurrence is a new drama than governance of a state of million of people reliant on the outcomes of long term planning. Of course you are not alone in that view, pension crisis, what pensions crisis? You can't plan and assume that something will definitely happen. Obviously others have much greater faith in God Science than I do. No dear there are possibilities and probabilities, there is research and experimentation, there is a whole scientific method.
One can plan and hold more than one plan, for example the plan when herd immunity doesn't work, like it doesn't for so many diseases.
Its strange that someone in a social science, that indeed a field that has spent so long trying to develop its own methods to assert that its theories might just be more than individual musings and opinions sees the vast swath of science as some sort of faith based roll of the dice, certainly far from the viewpoint with most socialists (well apart from the religiously inspired ones) throughout the ages.
You are a most intriguing individual.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,151
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 2, 2020 20:00:11 GMT
Could you just admit you want that because it would lead to the outcome you so desire? I have no issues with vaccines, so no. I think policy should be based on the known, not wishful thinking.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,151
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 2, 2020 20:01:58 GMT
You can't plan and assume that something will definitely happen. Obviously others have much greater faith in God Science than I do. No dear there are possibilities and probabilities, there is research and experimentation, there is a whole scientific method.
One can plan and hold more than one plan, for example the plan when herd immunity doesn't work, like it doesn't for so many diseases. Its strange that someone in a social science, that indeed a field that has spent so long trying to develop its own methods to assert that its theories might just be more than individual musings and opinions sees the vast swath of science as some sort of faith based roll of the dice, certainly far from the viewpoint with most socialists (well apart from the religiously inspired ones) throughout the ages. You are a most intriguing individual.
That's a very positivist way of viewing social science....I think it's very much about interpretation.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,516
|
Post by Khunanup on Nov 2, 2020 20:29:38 GMT
I do have concerns about a potential vaccine - I think getting one will take longer than we expect even now, I think a lot of people might refuse it which would make it harder for us to ensure enough people to get it, and I'm almost certain the distribution process will be a cock up (no doubt one that gets Dido Harding or another one of Boris' mates very rich). But with the number of vaccines in development, we'd have to be incredibly unlucky to end up without a working one at all. Yes. But I'm talking about where we are now, which is that we don't have one. So I don't think policy should make the assumption that will be the inevitable outcome. That's all. You do know that much of local government, and actually most charities and a good chunk of central government even as well as many many businesses plan on the basis of reasonable assumptions don't you Mike. It's all based on available evidence, projection of likely funding/profits, success of programmes, even changes of customer/client/residents behaviour. It's basic forward planning, with the important sub planning based on contingencies. What's missing from the government is any overarching plan at all, the very worst of all worlds alongside waiting on absolute clarity before planning for consequences.
|
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by cj on Nov 2, 2020 20:30:50 GMT
No dear there are possibilities and probabilities, there is research and experimentation, there is a whole scientific method.
One can plan and hold more than one plan, for example the plan when herd immunity doesn't work, like it doesn't for so many diseases. Its strange that someone in a social science, that indeed a field that has spent so long trying to develop its own methods to assert that its theories might just be more than individual musings and opinions sees the vast swath of science as some sort of faith based roll of the dice, certainly far from the viewpoint with most socialists (well apart from the religiously inspired ones) throughout the ages. You are a most intriguing individual.
That's a very positivist way of viewing social science....I think it's very much about interpretation. From what I can recall it wasn't just positivists that had some regard for validity and reliability in their fields of study, otherwise we're just interpreting entrails or how the birds fly
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,151
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 2, 2020 20:31:45 GMT
Yes. But I'm talking about where we are now, which is that we don't have one. So I don't think policy should make the assumption that will be the inevitable outcome. That's all. You do know that much of local government, and actually most charities and a good chunk of central government even as well as many many businesses plan on the basis of reasonable assumptions don't you Mike. It's all based on available evidence, projection of likely funding/profits, success of programmes, even changes of customer/client/residents behaviour. It's basic forward planning, with the important sub planning based on contingencies. What's missing from the government is any overarching plan at all, the very worst of all worlds alongside waiting on absolute clarity before planning for consequences. I also know how much we are plagued by policy disasters caused by forward planning based on myth!
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 39,151
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 2, 2020 20:32:28 GMT
That's a very positivist way of viewing social science....I think it's very much about interpretation. From what I can recall it wasn't just positivists that had some regard for validity and reliability in their fields of study Reliability is positivist, validity isn't
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Nov 2, 2020 20:43:34 GMT
Government has the responsibility to plan equally for.
1. A high quality vaccine.
2. A mediocre vaccine.
3. No vaccine.
|
|
Sandy
Forum Regular
Posts: 2,741
|
Post by Sandy on Nov 2, 2020 21:26:20 GMT
BossMan, could you add me to the Reform Party group please?
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Nov 2, 2020 21:57:51 GMT
BossMan , could you add me to the Reform Party group please? I've just added you into the group, and it looks like your profile has displayed the change automatically, so you won't need to change any other settings. (Sorry for beating you to it, BossMan )
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 2, 2020 22:34:03 GMT
With what vaccine? It doesn't exist. So, why are you planning policy on the basis that it inevitably will? Policy should assume no vaccine, ever - not belief in pie in the sky. Just proves that those whose religion is science are typical of all religionists!! Vaccines do exist Mike, they are just being tested to make sure at least one is reliable and safe, and nothing from the combined clinical trials is giving any reason to doubt that at least one will be reliable and safe. You repeat mantra after mantra with no basis in fact because you believe it to be the case and you blankly fail to believe anything that is contrary to said belief. It must be quite a wearing way to view the world. No. His view is correct. He is a socialist and a calm intellectual and no harm to anyone. I am a harm and I like and support him because so often he makes so much sense and because he is such a very decent concerned individual. This is not all about politics but about eternal verities and common sense.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 2, 2020 22:58:14 GMT
With what vaccine? It doesn't exist. So, why are you planning policy on the basis that it inevitably will? Policy should assume no vaccine, ever - not belief in pie in the sky. Just proves that those whose religion is science are typical of all religionists!! Vaccines do exist Mike, they are just being tested to make sure at least one is reliable and safe, and nothing from the combined clinical trials is giving any reason to doubt that at least one will be reliable and safe. You repeat mantra after mantra with no basis in fact because you believe it to be the case and you blankly fail to believe anything that is contrary to said belief. It must be quite a wearing way to view the world. But those testing regimes can take 12-years or more before they are considerd effective. Are you happy to wait that long and wreck the economy for a decade in the meantime?
|
|