Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science | Hacker News Reader

Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science

bmj.com

106 pointscirrus-clouds59 comments

Quote:

> [...] research published this week by The BMJ [...] finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of performance claims made by its manufacturers. Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions sensibly pushed to publish their study findings before the government committed to buying a million of these tests but were blocked by the health department and the prime minister’s office. Why was it important to procure this product without due scrutiny? Prior publication of research on a preprint server or a government website is compatible with The BMJ’s publication policy. As if to prove a point, Public Health England then unsuccessfully attempted to block The BMJ’s press release about the research paper.

This seems like pretty dishonest framing from the article. The government was quite explicit about why it was important to procure this product without due scrutiny (https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4353?ijkey=369744d6c8b0...). They urgently needed a lot of tests in order to do surveillance testing, and the normal standards of quality for medical tests don't matter enough to delay pandemic surveillance until they're satisfied.

More generally, I think this clearly demonstrates the problem with claims of politicization: the question of which corners should be cut to address a public health emergency is inherently political.

If the governments position was simply that this test was good enough, or that they wanted to proceeded at risk, there would be no problem.

The problem is that the government also actively tried to suppress accurate scientific publications about these tests.

This is an editorial by the Executive Editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal.

Honestly, these UK incidents detailed seem awfully tame to someone across the ocean.

On the contrary, at least in the US I don't worry about the government censoring scientific journal articles about covid that make them look bad. Maybe I am wrong about this.

Forreal. In the US, public health officials are getting death threats.

Indeed, the editorial gives examples from the US:

"Suppression of science and scientists is not new or a peculiarly British phenomenon. In the US, President Trump’s government manipulated the Food and Drug Administration to hastily approve unproved drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir."

United States FDA did not approve of neither so this is just a fluff editorial that doesn't fact check some of us call that fake news

The FDA absolutely approved those drugs via emergency authorizations. That's the point: they weren't able to be approved via a normal process so the administration went around the bureaucracy. And in the case of HCQ they did this in contravention of the clear science surrounding the drug.

Do you have a link to "not fake" news explaining how these drugs were somehow not approved?

There was never a possibility that an event as generationally and globally impactful as Covid19 would not have be politicized. But it doesn't help that it's happening at a time with record distrust of science.

Western Civilization would not have made it to where it is today without the Scientific Method. Full Stop.

Science™, as it exists today, is a deified Organization, filling the vacuum of religion in the secular West.

Corruption grows under the guise of purity. Be it the Catholic Church, be it Sumo Wrestling. What sentence spoke to the HNer's ear is more unquestionably swallowed than one prefaced with "Scientists report..." ? As if Scientists don't have mortgages to pay. As if funding was entirely detached from motives. Full throated acceptance.

All sounds a bit left-field until you hear Venki Ramakrishnan, President of the (UK) Royal Society, describe randomised controlled trials of masks as “methodological fetishism”.

I await the result of Thomas Benfield's (Copenhagen) study on the same with interest.

That quote probably comes with some context. While I'm generally in favor of rigorous testing of all hypotheses, sometimes you have to make decisions before those tests can be completed. (It is worth running the tests in the meantime, though.)

In that case, if the context is what I think: it is methodological fetishism to assume masks are useless until proven otherwise, because the cost is very little, the potential benefit is rather high, and the probability of benefit seems like "at least 10%". And I think certain health authorities were indeed making that assumption early on (though some have said they were simply lying because they thought that would produce the behavior they wanted).

You point is well-taken, but the assumption that masks are useless or dangerous until proven otherwise is simply the well-established precautionary principle. Why dangerous? I travel on the London underground regularly, masks are mandatory but that is not universally observed; a large number of those with masks are constantly adjusting them, touching their faces, then touching the seats and the hand-rails. Those without generally don't touch their faces. Which behaviour is more harmful? I don't know, and until we get some hard numbers of the actual effects of real people's behaviour (rather than hamster-in-a-box studies), nor does anyone else.

> Science™, as it exists today, is a deified Organization, filling the vacuum of religion in the secular West.

I don't really agree here. I can see the argument that most fields are so advanced that people need to have "faith" in scientific leadership because they can't hope to achieve a deep understanding of most fields of science. At least that trust is given to a group who is ostensibly equipped to refute false or misleading findings via the scientific method.

But that's not replacing the role of religion, which is more political, social, & ethical in nature. I'd argue political systems have displaced religion in most of the West.

Also, shouldn't your username be YuenglingLight

There's a discussion to be had about "scientism", but this isn't it.

Say you were Emperor of Antagria(Neighbour of Canada). You find out there is a highly infectious mutated virus spreading. It has entered your country. Early modeling places it less deadly than the flu but higher infectiousness. Which likely means mass deaths.

It's February 3rd, Australia and the USA closed their borders to China. Trump's political opponents are calling him xenophobic and racist. Canada denounced "the spread of misinformation and fear across Canadian society" and called on the opposition to "not sensationalize the risk to Canadians",[15][16] while Tam endorsed the position by the World Health Organization, which "advises against any kind of travel and trade restrictions, saying that they are inappropriate and could actually cause more harm than good in terms of our global effort to contain" the disease.[15]

Your own advisors are likely telling to much of the same thing. Afterall, it's not even a Pandemic yet, that doesnt happen until March 11th. You tend to agree Trump is xenophobic and racist. So you don't shutdown the border. But you could potentially save lots of lives if you do shut it down. You decide not to because you dont want to be called xenophobic and racist.

Month later, March 13th comes along and Canada is finally pretending to close it's borders; when in reality is actually not. Multiple flights a day were still coming from China.

You look at the Canadians and think they might have an idea what they are doing. Maybe those flights are just repatriating their own citizens? You look into it and there's absolutely no checks to see if those people are healthy, they arent really serious about the lockdown.

You think, perhaps we should wear masks? But Canada's chief of public health outright dismisses the idea. It's april now and Tam is saying "people who are not sick should not wear a face mask at all"

You figure that perhaps she's educated and knows well, perhaps masks dont work? You could order that you must wear a mask to go out in public. It might save lives but surely Chief of Public Health in Canada knows what she is doing.

It's now May 20th and this same person now says we should wear masks? Why didn't you tell the citizens of Antagria to wear masks sooner?

At what point do you as Emperor make the decision to lockdown? At what point do you face being called xenophobic and a racist and actually lockdown?

You also realize that when you lockdown and removed fundamental human rights. You need to show people you're re-opening. So you lockdown more than you even need to, in order to have a reopening where you end up at the appropriate lockdown level. So you even shutdown your government's parks and other outdoor areas. Only to open them up shortly afterwards.

Why is Covid so politicized? Why is there corruption and suppression of science? Because without suppressing Covid dissent someone might say you have completely screwed up your response to the issue.

> Because without suppressing Covid dissent someone might say you have completely screwed up your response to the issue.

1. there is oodles of dissent re: COVID19. Some of it is from idiots, some of it is from people cynically trying to make money, some of it is from people worth listening to (even if they are wrong).

2. there are millions of people saying that you (for various definitions of "you") have completely screwed up

So in the end, your cynical and selectively-drawn account finishes without explaining anything at all.

Misinformation: "It's February 3rd, Australia and the USA closed their borders to China"

1. Taking a connecting flight via another country to the US was not banned. Taiwan, on the other hand, banned all Chinese citizens from entering - from all countries.

2. The US only blocked Chinese citizens from arriving via direct flights from China to the US, but American citizens (and some others) were allowed: "Since then [the ban], nearly 40,000 Americans and other authorized travelers have made the trip" [0].

3. The administration did not setup stringent/effective screening for arriving passengers with symptoms or follow ups for the 430,000 people who arrived directly from China until April 4: "430,000 People Have Traveled From China to U.S. Since Coronavirus Surfaced" [0]

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/coronavirus-china-trav...

Only thing you forgot is Dr. Tam's Oct 2 Tweet:

"Our goal for #COVID19 response remains to minimise severe illness and deaths. But this kick at the curve is a bit different. With schools and businesses open, everyone’s efforts are crucial.

This time, we’ve got to bend it like Canadians: give it the old double-double by layering PERSONAL RISK ASSESSMENT and PREVENTION PRACTICES and RECONFIGURING and DOWNSIZING our in-person #ContactBubble, as and where possible."

What a concise and clear communication. We should all aspire to be more like Dr. Tam.

>What a concise and clear communication. We should all aspire to be more like Dr. Tam.

My timeline was taken from wikipedia and did not make it to october. My intention wasn't to criticize Dr Tam, though I do agree that I did.

The point I was making is that it's very difficult to make decisions; and more importantly make the right decision.

Everything you said is factually incorrect. The China lockout happened after the virus was already here, champ.

The virus was most likely worldwide before anyone knew about it, or could have prevented it. By the time the Wuhan outbreak was in the news, it was far too late.

>Everything you said is factually incorrect. The China lockout happened after the virus was already here, champ.

I never said Trump's actions in February prevented the virus from entering the country. It of course would be post-virus entering the country.

I also laided out that timeline literally from wikipedia. If I am wrong somewhere. Perhaps we can update wikipedia, just tell me where it's wrong.

It is well-though-out and illustrative comment, but since it doesn’t follow leftist narrative mob downvotes it.

>It is well-though-out and illustrative comment, but since it doesn’t follow leftist narrative mob downvotes it.

Out of interest. You are emperor of Angaria with obviously 20/20 hindsight. What date do you make the decision to lockdown. Pull a Madagascar if you know plague inc.

I can say authoritatively that on February 2nd I started writing goodbye notes to friends, just in case, because I had a timestamp on one of them. It was pretty obvious in late January that things were going horribly wrong.

>Out of interest. You are emperor of Angaria with obviously 20/20 hindsight. What date do you make the decision to lockdown. Pull a Madagascar if you know plague inc.

Before January 1, ideally. Certainly before January 15, which is when Patient Zero is believed to have entered Seattle from China.

Your fictional emperor has a big advantage over the nearby US, though. In January Trump had been impeached by the House and was preparing for his trial in the Senate.

What would have happened if Trump had announced a hard closure of the US land, sea, and air borders on January 14? No one in except US citizens, who all have to quarantine for 14 days at military bases or requisitioned hotels? MSNBC, CNN, the Times, and the rest of the media would have switched from 100% impeachment to 100% "Trump is locking down the country so he can use the military to seize total power!!!!!". Doing this might in and of itself have caused three more Senators to vote for his conviction on February 5.

It's a wonder that Trump amidst all this was able to get a China ban done. In retrospect, those behind the lies about Trump that got him impeached have much to answer for.

Lies about Trump got him impeached?

With 20/20 2020 hindsight I don't lock down my own country, I lock China in.

.. how?

I agree that a lot more countries should have closed down travel from infected countries a lot sooner; the UK never did this properly.

Funny, a week after the elections we got our first announcement from a biotech firm of a viable 90% effective vaccine, now another week later we have a second firm announcing 94% effectiveness. No politics, right.

When the President banned flights from China months ago, the Democrat response was "XENOPHOBIA". Again, no politics, right.

One cautiously notes this is the exact scenario that Andrew Wakefield complained had happened with MMR.

The corruption in the MMR scenario came from Wakefield, including having applied for a patent for a competing vaccine, and receiving over $400k by trial lawyers pushing to show the MMR vaccine to be dangerous, resulting in findings that he "had been dishonest in his research, had acted against his patients' best interests and mistreated developmentally delayed children, and had 'failed in his duties as a responsible consultant'" and his being barred from practicing medicine in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud#Confli...

Quite right! Hence "cautiously".

Regardless, one may still "cautiously note this is the exact scenario that Andrew Wakefield complained had happened with MMR", without contradicting anything you (quite rightly) pointed out about the nature of later events.

And just as with this story, and as others have commented elsewhere, this behaviour by the government (pushing a solution they were aware had a high probability of being substandard) may or may not be more related to political than medical factors, and may or may not have involved malicious intent.

People's healthcare gets nationalized and there's surprise that healthcare becomes politically driven? Who would have thought?

It's the privatisation that is making people suspicious: the private companies who've been awarded public money with inadequate scrutiny inevitably turn out to be linked to the ruling party or their donors.

(see linked footnote https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n21/peter-geoghegan/cron... )

Reply on news.ycombinator.com