The establishment blames misinformation for the collapse in confidence. But much of the damage was done by politicians, broadcasters and experts who oversold the case and punished doubt.
Ironically herd immunity, as in the case of Sweden, would have led to less deaths and less impact on economies. Whilst instead we all followed the herd in believing the non scientific lies of politicians.
Well said, Alan. The 'herd mentality' of the political class often overlooked the actual evidence from places like Sweden. It’s a perfect example of how trust was squandered in favor of a one-size-fits-all narrative.
Oh yes, don't wear a mask , no wait wear a mask. Wear masks in pubs but it's OK to eat in the same atmosphere without them. You will only need one injection,no wait you'll need a booster, then another..ad nauseum!
"Follow the science" became one of the most abused phrases of the pandemic. The problem was that science is a process of debate and revision - not a fixed set of instructions to be handed down by politicians. Presenting contested modelling as settled fact was always going to end badly when reality diverged from the narrative.
Early on the pharmaceutical companies were claiming that their vaccines were 98% effective. I still have no idea what that really meant. Like many others I assumed that this meant that if you were vaccinated then you were unlikely to get the disease. This seemed reasonable, after all, if you had been vaccinated against say smallpox you were unlikely to catch it. I remember queuing up at school in South Wales when there was an outbreak. We now know that the covid vaccine doesn't stop you catching it or prevent you from infecting someone else. So what that claimed 98% effectiveness meant is anyone's guess. It has caused a massive loss of trust not only in politicians but also in scientists.
Really well put, Steve. The comparison to traditional vaccines like smallpox was a completely reasonable expectation - and one that was never properly corrected. The 98% figure referred to relative risk reduction in a specific trial context, not absolute protection against infection. That distinction was never meaningfully explained to the public, and when reality didn't match the implied promise, the trust damage was inevitable - and arguably deserved.
Thank you Steve. There are also other substantial benefits from the North Sea ie well paid jobs, Corporation Tax revenue and multiple complementary services totally ignored by Miliband but much needed by our desperate Chancellor.
I can never find the cost of imported LNG compared to North Sea gas. If you know the answer could you please give it to people like Mike Graham so the madness of Miliband is exposed factually.
Unfortunately it probably won't answer your question because like anything to do with energy markets it's always more complicated than you think. I'm not at all an expert but as I understand it LNG is almost always more expensive that north sea gas. But there isn't a single price for LNG because it depends on where it comes from, Australian LNG is more expensive than US LNG. It also depends on how it's bought - by contract or by the spot market. Because it's a market based on marginal pricing the most expensive gas sets the price for all of the gas including North Sea gas and that means the price is based on the price of the most expensive LNG we are buying. SO the question arises would our gas price be lower if we took more from the North Sea. According to Kathryn it would because it would mean that we wouldn't have to take the most expensive LNG. She also says that if we were to take a little more from the North Sea we wouldn't need any LNG at all during the summer.
Ironically herd immunity, as in the case of Sweden, would have led to less deaths and less impact on economies. Whilst instead we all followed the herd in believing the non scientific lies of politicians.
Well said, Alan. The 'herd mentality' of the political class often overlooked the actual evidence from places like Sweden. It’s a perfect example of how trust was squandered in favor of a one-size-fits-all narrative.
Oh yes, don't wear a mask , no wait wear a mask. Wear masks in pubs but it's OK to eat in the same atmosphere without them. You will only need one injection,no wait you'll need a booster, then another..ad nauseum!
That science ! Yes I remember it well!
I agree but do you remember the call to "Follow the science"?
"Follow the science" became one of the most abused phrases of the pandemic. The problem was that science is a process of debate and revision - not a fixed set of instructions to be handed down by politicians. Presenting contested modelling as settled fact was always going to end badly when reality diverged from the narrative.
Early on the pharmaceutical companies were claiming that their vaccines were 98% effective. I still have no idea what that really meant. Like many others I assumed that this meant that if you were vaccinated then you were unlikely to get the disease. This seemed reasonable, after all, if you had been vaccinated against say smallpox you were unlikely to catch it. I remember queuing up at school in South Wales when there was an outbreak. We now know that the covid vaccine doesn't stop you catching it or prevent you from infecting someone else. So what that claimed 98% effectiveness meant is anyone's guess. It has caused a massive loss of trust not only in politicians but also in scientists.
Really well put, Steve. The comparison to traditional vaccines like smallpox was a completely reasonable expectation - and one that was never properly corrected. The 98% figure referred to relative risk reduction in a specific trial context, not absolute protection against infection. That distinction was never meaningfully explained to the public, and when reality didn't match the implied promise, the trust damage was inevitable - and arguably deserved.
Thank you Steve. There are also other substantial benefits from the North Sea ie well paid jobs, Corporation Tax revenue and multiple complementary services totally ignored by Miliband but much needed by our desperate Chancellor.
Brilliant as always Jamie and so right.
I can never find the cost of imported LNG compared to North Sea gas. If you know the answer could you please give it to people like Mike Graham so the madness of Miliband is exposed factually.
Thank you Jamie
Hi Clive, you might find this interesting from Kathryn Porter where she describes how the gas market works in the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1taxiSpIVEw
Unfortunately it probably won't answer your question because like anything to do with energy markets it's always more complicated than you think. I'm not at all an expert but as I understand it LNG is almost always more expensive that north sea gas. But there isn't a single price for LNG because it depends on where it comes from, Australian LNG is more expensive than US LNG. It also depends on how it's bought - by contract or by the spot market. Because it's a market based on marginal pricing the most expensive gas sets the price for all of the gas including North Sea gas and that means the price is based on the price of the most expensive LNG we are buying. SO the question arises would our gas price be lower if we took more from the North Sea. According to Kathryn it would because it would mean that we wouldn't have to take the most expensive LNG. She also says that if we were to take a little more from the North Sea we wouldn't need any LNG at all during the summer.