Except for once in a blue moon now, I stopped reading The Conversation 18 months ago after they banned me. It wasn't for uncivil or hate speech, but because I took issue with a (white) University of Johannesburg writer's smarmy, made-up fallist word that only he understood (it says a lot about their editorial policy that they permit poor syntax in support of their political agenda) and for objecting after they removed my critical comments. (They chastise commentators but allow writers limitless freedom in articles and comments.)
I was already irritated by poor writing, reasoning and indicative research of South African academics and researchers published there and often said so, which they wouldn't have liked. The Conversation's motto is "academic rigour, journalistic flair", but they published tabloid clangers like (Wits University academic) aliens didn't help build the pyramids (really!), and from another Wits academic, (white) hipsters are guilty of racism by association for buying gentrified property.
One of the authors Imraan Valodia objected to a commentator's criticism of their proposals and their (academic) "credibility". But her criticism - their suggestion/call/plan the lockdown must end - is valid.
Imperial College London is world-wide famous particularity now for the coronavirus model they developed that showed large numbers of infections and deaths in the UK and US if they didn't enforce lockdowns and similar measures. Reportedly Johnson, who ignored social distancing his government was telling citizens to do and became severely ill himself, and Trump were "shaken" by the data and immediately changed policy, at least the UK.
In The Guardian today Helen Ward, a professor of public health at Imperial College, wrote the British government ignored their advice to lockdown. "It’s now clear that so many people have died, and so many more are desperately ill, simply because our politicians refused to listen to and act on advice. Scientists like us said lock down earlier; we said test, trace, isolate. But they decided they knew better." "The 'science around coronavirus is in its infancy and developing daily, with researchers across the world trying to understand how the virus spreads ... But while scientists carry out observations and experiments, testing, iterating and discovering new knowledge, it is the role of policymakers to act on the best available evidence."
The authors of this article, like the numerous self-taught overnight "experts", are advocating a course of action - relaxing isolation measures - without having adequate data about the spread of the virus and Covid-19 in the South African community and understanding the virus itself. At the moment a complete picture is not available and shall not be for a while. Not only are they unscientific, they're irresponsible. Valodia told the commentator she misunderstood the article (I understand it the same as she) but the title "SA needs to end the lockdown" is unambiguous.
Only after they present a fait accompli plan for the post-lockdown phase - "a blueprint for its replacement" - do they concede - closing the isolation ward after the virus has escaped so to speak - that the "health and economic strategy must respond to the latest evidence". This must be Wits' official view too because heads of department and council members are associated with this blueprint (it's not merely an opinion). The only person of significance not listed as author is the vice-chancellor. It suspiciously looks like a corporate effort and no doubt lobbying for Wits' corporate donors.
A while before the Conversation banned me I asked a Wits academic (them again) who wrote beyond his competence (a sociologist writing about Cape Town's water crisis from a technical water aspect, his assessment was off) what kind of science Wits practises. He got very upset and didn't engage me again (in academia the fights are vicious because he stakes are so small; petty minds really). This article makes me again wonder what kind of "science" Wits practises, and confirms my low opinion of SA research and academia.
I was already irritated by poor writing, reasoning and indicative research of South African academics and researchers published there and often said so, which they wouldn't have liked. The Conversation's motto is "academic rigour, journalistic flair", but they published tabloid clangers like (Wits University academic) aliens didn't help build the pyramids (really!), and from another Wits academic, (white) hipsters are guilty of racism by association for buying gentrified property.
I wonder what's in Braamfontein's (their location) water.
This article "South Africa needs to end the lockdown: here’s a blueprint for its replacement" written by senior Wits academics including deans of the health and commerce and law and contribution from council member Cas Coovadia is not as outrageous - amazing, stupid and/or funny - as some published in The Conversation's local edition. But as I note in this post, it's another example in a long line of what passes for "research" at SA's universities and the quality of academics' output including the worthies listed here.
This article "South Africa needs to end the lockdown: here’s a blueprint for its replacement" written by senior Wits academics including deans of the health and commerce and law and contribution from council member Cas Coovadia is not as outrageous - amazing, stupid and/or funny - as some published in The Conversation's local edition. But as I note in this post, it's another example in a long line of what passes for "research" at SA's universities and the quality of academics' output including the worthies listed here.
One of the authors Imraan Valodia objected to a commentator's criticism of their proposals and their (academic) "credibility". But her criticism - their suggestion/call/plan the lockdown must end - is valid.
Imperial College London is world-wide famous particularity now for the coronavirus model they developed that showed large numbers of infections and deaths in the UK and US if they didn't enforce lockdowns and similar measures. Reportedly Johnson, who ignored social distancing his government was telling citizens to do and became severely ill himself, and Trump were "shaken" by the data and immediately changed policy, at least the UK.
In The Guardian today Helen Ward, a professor of public health at Imperial College, wrote the British government ignored their advice to lockdown. "It’s now clear that so many people have died, and so many more are desperately ill, simply because our politicians refused to listen to and act on advice. Scientists like us said lock down earlier; we said test, trace, isolate. But they decided they knew better." "The 'science around coronavirus is in its infancy and developing daily, with researchers across the world trying to understand how the virus spreads ... But while scientists carry out observations and experiments, testing, iterating and discovering new knowledge, it is the role of policymakers to act on the best available evidence."
The authors of this article, like the numerous self-taught overnight "experts", are advocating a course of action - relaxing isolation measures - without having adequate data about the spread of the virus and Covid-19 in the South African community and understanding the virus itself. At the moment a complete picture is not available and shall not be for a while. Not only are they unscientific, they're irresponsible. Valodia told the commentator she misunderstood the article (I understand it the same as she) but the title "SA needs to end the lockdown" is unambiguous.
Only after they present a fait accompli plan for the post-lockdown phase - "a blueprint for its replacement" - do they concede - closing the isolation ward after the virus has escaped so to speak - that the "health and economic strategy must respond to the latest evidence". This must be Wits' official view too because heads of department and council members are associated with this blueprint (it's not merely an opinion). The only person of significance not listed as author is the vice-chancellor. It suspiciously looks like a corporate effort and no doubt lobbying for Wits' corporate donors.
A while before the Conversation banned me I asked a Wits academic (them again) who wrote beyond his competence (a sociologist writing about Cape Town's water crisis from a technical water aspect, his assessment was off) what kind of science Wits practises. He got very upset and didn't engage me again (in academia the fights are vicious because he stakes are so small; petty minds really). This article makes me again wonder what kind of "science" Wits practises, and confirms my low opinion of SA research and academia.
Comments
Post a Comment