A new inquiry by the charity Sense about Science has concluded that the Government’s top-down attitude to the pandemic and simplistic and exaggerated messaging hindered the public’s ability to respond and caused unnecessary harm. Amy Jones at UnHerd has more.
The inquiry used testimony from expert witnesses combined with new population surveys to analyse the impact of the Government’s approach and communications during the pandemic. It found that, rather than empowering individuals to make sensible decisions based on risk and knowledge about the pandemic, the government instead chose to focus on simplistic slogans, such as ‘hands, face, space’ and stringent universal rules.
By focusing on such paternalistic messaging, the government at times misled the public, for example leading people to believe that their risk of infection was higher than it actually was (the inquiry notes this is particularly true of children and the young.) In an attempt to increase compliance with the rules – even after evidence showed a huge disparity in risk for different age groups – the Government continued to imply that Covid didn’t discriminate.
This meant that groups at lower risk, such as children, were subject to stringent, harmful restrictions, the impact of which could have been reduced or avoided. It also meant that resources weren’t adequately allocated to those who were most at risk. As such, there was a failure to consider the cost of different interventions, which should be standard practice for policy decisions.
Modelling scenarios, for example, did not consider the harm of school closures, and therefore failed to consider optimal strategies for keeping children in school. The Government failed to effectively communicate the rationale behind such policy decisions, instead simply issuing blanket decrees – something which harmed people’s ability to adequately judge risks. In the first few months of the pandemic, the inquiry found that 60% of policies were set out in press releases, rather than in policy documents, and around 90% provided no clear link to the available evidence behind policy decisions.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Germany’s problem, of course, is that like a number of other Western countries it’s afflicted with a ruling group that has a profound death wish, a death wish which manifests itself as a profound yearning for national suicide. Since the only way to destroy the nations of the West is to destroy the peoples of West, it’s no coincidence that population replacement is now the fundamental project of the rulers of so many Western countries. And from this follows the laughable tripe that anyone who doesn’t go along with national suicide must be another Hitler. Which proves that our rulers have entered the berserk phase of their spiritual illness.
According to the theory of Cliodynamics the period between the end of the old elite and the start of the new elite is chaos. Now the various Western countries may not be in step with each other but you have to wonder if we are going through the period of ‘chaos’ before ‘populism’ produces a new elite.
Germany’s problem, like the rest of Continental Europe, is they have never had democracy in the sense the UK has had (until recently) as imperfect as it was. They have always had some sort of centralised, authoritarian regimes.
Germans have a tendency to like being told what to do.
The key to stoking a preference cascade is to “give permission” to people to think outside of an existing template. I don’t know how much notice Germans take of outsiders, but perhaps a genuine tech genius will have influence in a tech-focussed country such as Germany.
You are assuming the capacity for thinking at all… a rarity these days after 70 plus years of indoctrination via State education discouraging individual thought.
Yeah, for the woke illuminati anybody with an even slightly different opinion is a fascist. We are used to it.
You don’t think immigration is an unalloyed joy? You are just like Hitler.
You don’t think a man can turn into a woman just by declaring himself to be one? You are a nazi.
You think there might be reasons other than racism for certain ethnic groups to underachieve? You are a fascist.
You think the AfD might have a point about Islamic migrants being just a tiny bit more responsible for terrorist attacks than Buddhist monks? You are scum.
It’s OK, guys, we are used to it.
Actually Hitler was a huge fan of immigration – into Czechoslovakia, Poland, for example, sights set on Russia.
Of course in those days immigration (good) was called colonisation (bad).
The authoritarian left have lost their minds.
How do you lose something you never had?
So the editor of a paper’s opinion section resigned because it printed an opinion that they didn’t agree with?
Sounds like a case of dummy and pram to me, but no doubt they’ll claim it was their high moral standards.
If those on the Left weren’t accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being Far Right, or “literally” Hitler, and proclaiming they are protecting democracy, what would they have to say?
“… she said she had “always enjoyed heading the opinion department” at the newspaper.”
Correction:-
“… she said she had “always enjoyed heading the my opinion department” at the newspaper.”