Read on Twitter
I think Today producers, editors and presenters have some serious questions to answer about why they have today invited a discredited scientist with a repeated track record of making falsely dismissive claims on COVID threat to offer her views to the nation this morning https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1346386530861019141
We know things are as bad as they have ever been. We know that ensuring compliance with yet another lockdown will be incredibly hard. How is it "public service journalism" to put on national radio crackpots selling people pie in the sky about how the threat is exaggerated?
There are literally thousands of scientists who could talk to citizens about the current pandemic situation. It is not "balance" to pick one with a demonstrated recent track record of getting things completely wrong. It is irresponsible.
To be clear, this is not a call for a panel of ppl with identical views. Can have people on who research the educational and social costs of lockdown. *Their* case is not best represented either by someone who has repeatedly made dismissive claims which were soon proved wrong.
Just listening to it again (was half listening this morning while doing other things). She starts by refusing to discuss case *for* lockdown by saying she doesn't want to engage in areas outside her expertise. Which is fair enough if done consistently. But it isn't. 1/2
2/2 She then immediately dismissed the args concerning the new varient. But she is a theoretician, not an applied researcher working on COVID. This is not her area of expertise either. She dismisses claim of new variant as a "narrative" based on "large body of *theoretical* work
She is countering empirical work with theoretical models. Something she does not acknowledge and which non-academics won't understand. Then she invokes herd immunity, something she has repeatedly invoked in past articles which were proved quickly and catastrophically worng.
She then says we need to keep in focus costs of lockdown and says we need a debate on costs and benefits. Yes, fair enough. Then says that debate hasn't happened. But the opening Q asked her to engage in that debate (case for/against lockdown) and she refused!
She then moves on to shielding the vulnerable - a policy she has advocated repeatedly. Is it workable?
"You need creative solutions."
Then advocates protecting vulnerable until they're vaccinated - which is the arg *for* lockdown, but says lockdown has problems (unspecified).
"You need creative solutions."
Then advocates protecting vulnerable until they're vaccinated - which is the arg *for* lockdown, but says lockdown has problems (unspecified).
So, in sum her contribution to debate was:
1. Dismiss empirical case for new variant based on theoretical possibility of other expls
2. Advocate for a debate on lockdown costs and benefits which she refused to engage in directly
3. Imply costs outweigh bens, without evidence
1. Dismiss empirical case for new variant based on theoretical possibility of other expls
2. Advocate for a debate on lockdown costs and benefits which she refused to engage in directly
3. Imply costs outweigh bens, without evidence
All 3 points - evidence base on new varient, debate over health costs of lockdown, examination of cost/ben balance - are worthy of discussion. I don't think she was a good advocate for any of them though, not in the interview in isolation, and particularly not given past comments
(final point re the interview - I think the interviewer Mishal Husein did a pretty decent job - the first Q she asked was the right way to frame things. Not her fault Gupta refused to engage. But she could have been briefed on Gupta's track record to date and pressed her on it)
E.g. a Q like this:
"In May, you said the virus was on its way out. In July, you claimed we may already have herd immunity. In October, you claimed rates wld be falling by Xmas without lockdown. You were wrong every time. Why should we listen to you now?"
"In May, you said the virus was on its way out. In July, you claimed we may already have herd immunity. In October, you claimed rates wld be falling by Xmas without lockdown. You were wrong every time. Why should we listen to you now?"
Here she is in May opposing lockdown and playing down fatality rates because the pandemic is "already on its way out": https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/
"And she believes it is a “strong possibility” that if we return to full normal tomorrow — pubs, nightclubs, festivals — we would be fine". Hmm.
Here she is in July saying "we may already have herd immunity" and arguing (in case we don't presumably) that young people have a "duty" to go and get infected: https://reaction.life/we-may-already-have-herd-immunity-an-interview-with-professor-sunetra-gupta/
(to be fair she doesn't rule out a large second wave fully in this interview, though the interviewer encourages it to do so. Just says it is one of several possibilities)
