sluggerotoole--2020-11-23--Thinking, Fast and Slow about politics…

Thinking, Fast and Slow about politics…

I ’ m sure you remember 2016 .
The year of the Brexit referendum , the year when Donald Trump won the presidential election .
How well , how accurately , do you remember the campaigns , the slogans ?
I remember Take Back Control , £350 Million for the NHS , Make America Great Again , Drain the Swamp , and Crooked Hillary , and Lock Her Up .
These were all on the winning side ; there must have been slogans that the losers used , but they don ’ t immediately come to mind .
What about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
I remember Get Brexit Done .
The 2020 US presidential election ?
There was Sleepy Joe , but Joe Biden ’ s response passed me by .
In the months before election , we heard Electoral Fraud , and afterwards I WON !
, Stolen , and Electoral Fraud again .
These phrases are all short and snappy , and significantly , they were all frequently repeated ; it ’ s no wonder I remember them .
I know I listened and watched debates , but I can ’ t recall any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remember isn ’ t strange ; our memories , unless reinforced , decay quite rapidly .
If you hear a speech one day , you will remember very little the next day , other than whether the speech was ‘ good ’ or ‘ bad ’ .
Formal lectures are a poor way of getting information across ; four facts is the most adults will reliably remember .
The results in the 2016 votes have been the subject of many post-mortems in an attempt to understand how the results came about , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nigel Farage was very happy , Michael Gove and Boris Johnson looked shell-shocked immediately afterwards , as if they not only didn ’ t expect to win , but that they didn ’ t want to win .
Mrs Trump , reportedly , was unhappy about the win . )
These analyses are on the basis of types of voters and how they thought .
I want to look at these three events rather differently , as successful marketing .
Daniel Kahneman is an Israeli psychologist and economist , renowned for his work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2002* .
Kahneman published Thinking , Fast and Slow in 2011 .
Much of this work was done with Amos Tversky who died young .
Their work includes cognitive biases , a theory of thinking , and the idea of happiness .
The book is 500 pages long ; I ’ m only going to consider the Fast and Slow Thinking aspects .
The basic idea is simple ; there are two types of decision making processes in the brain .
The Fast type deals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyday life .
It ’ s automatic and unconscious .
So , when we want to enter a room , we find the door , and knowing how a door works , open it and enter .
If we didn ’ t know what a door was , or how one opens , we would have to use Slow thinking to work it out consciously and deliberately — this has been experimentally confirmed† .
This takes time and effort , and if we had to do this for every trivial “ decision ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Fast thinking gets round this .
It ’ s said , though the basis for this isn ’ t clear , that we make 35,000 “ decisions ” a day , of which 98 % are Fast .
Kahneman and others give examples of problems that are usually solved with either Fast or Slow thinking .
Typical examples of questions include the following : ( The first two are Fast questions , the second two are Slow questions ; the answers are in brackets after the question . )
Just to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ wavelength ” , please do this poll , and then click on the Show Results button : The first question is ludicrously easy ; none of us needs to think about that .
The multiplication ( 3 ) is harder , the answer doesn ’ t come immediately , and we have to work it out or use a calculator .
It ’ s not at all intuitive that the answers to the questions about the rope are the same in both cases ; indeed , the question is often used as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a few millimeters , and a meter or two respectively .
The given answer for the bat and ball question is incorrect ; the ball costs five pence .
( The workings are shown at the end of the post . )
I have primed you by including ten pence in the description , and Fast thinking has latched onto this to give an answer which seems about right — it has satisficed .
For many everyday problems such an answer would be acceptable , even if wrong .
Elections and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though .
The following Mind Map shows more detail of Fast and Slow thinking .
It ’ s quite complicated ; take a few slow-thinking moments to study it .
Notice particularly how the Fast system works ; it ’ s automatic , intuitive , but can make mistakes ; the solutions are “ good enough ” .
The Slow system needs time , effort and concentration .
Notice “ What you see is all there is ” on the Slow side ; it ’ s like taking things at face value and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy thinking or cognition , and is used in marketing because it can be induced : Look at how the inputs can be manipulated ; a clear and simple message which is repeated .
The inputs do not need to be factual or true .
And on the output side , things feel familiar and true , and we happily accept them .
Look back at the slogans at the start of this post .
What does Take Back Control really mean ?
What have we lost control of ?
How will regaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives ?
If we want to Get Brexit Done , what will this mean in practice ?
Where will we be afterwards ?
Make America Great Again sounds as if we want to regain our rightful place in the world order .
So , how are we going to achieve this , how will we regain what we have lost ?
Is this spelled out ?
What is the Swamp ?
It ’ s the idea that Washington is full of corrupt politicians , civil servants , and lobbyists who are all engaged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Trump the one who will fight against it to free the US from its clutches , as if he were a Saviour , a Messiah .
I hope to write about conspiracies soon .
Does the Crooked Hillary/Lock Her Up pairing remind you of anything ?
Mull this over ; during ( some types of ) church services , the priest at prayer will ask for intercessions ; and the congregation will respond .
For example , in the Church of England : All : Lock Her Up All : Lock Her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard of Sleepy Joe .
We ’ re supposed to think that Joe Biden is dementing and barely capable of thought .
Are any of you neurologists or geriatricians ?
Do you really know how dementia presents ?
What is the likelihood of a man of his age , 78 , having dementia ?
What ’ s the difference between dementia and the normal processes of ageing ?
( The risk of dementia at 78 is about 17 % overall ; that is , someone of that age is much more likely not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 74 is slightly lower . )
Most people get their news and information from TV and newspapers , though circulations are falling .
The Flesch and Flesch-Kincaid readability tests indicate how hard or easy passages are to read and understand** .
Tabloids such as the Sun are much easier to read than the Financial Times .
Easy reading uses short sentences and monosyllabic words .
If you ’ ve watched a TV dramatisation of a classic novel you will have noticed how simplified the drama is ; sometimes several characters in the original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not possible to include all the “ action ” of the novel in a few dramatic episodes .
Likewise with TV news ; it presents a simplified version of events , one suitable for everyone .
Indeed , the content of a TV news bulletin is often less than the content of a single broadsheet page .
( As well , TV executives are always striving for bigger audiences ; there are more people who are less-well educated than there are people who are well-educated . )
Summaries of dense texts are often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ study guides ” are aids for kids preparing for exams .
I mentioned that Kahneman ’ s book is 500 pages long , about 150,000 words ; I simply can not include all this in a post of this length ( 1,600 words ) nor can I even include all the detail of the relevant parts of Fast and Slow thinking .
Many people are busy enough without having to spend time and energy researching political slogans ; they osmotically absorb the messages of the marketeers , the “ three word slogans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Their understanding has been induced .
And now , Feeling Good about this , it ’ s going to be very difficult to change their minds .
Marketing politicians aren ’ t going to give up on such a useful tool either .
* Not quite a Nobel ; strictly , the prize wasn ’ t on Nobel ’ s original list ; it was added as a Memorial Prize in 1968 .
† In an experiment , students were shown into a room and given a task ( which was irrelevant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were told to leave the room by another door .
This door had the handle on the same side as the hinges , so that the door didn ’ t open normally .
It took the students several minutes to work out how to open the door .
** The grade level for this post is about 8 , meaning that it should be easily understood by 13 to 14 year olds .
( 2 ) A child ’ s bat and ball set costs £1.10 .
The bat costs £1 more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ball cost ?
( 4 ) A rope which fits snugly around the Earth ’ s equator is 40,070 Km long .
If the rope is made 2 meters longer , how far above the Earth ’ s surface will it be ?
Let c = the circumference of the Earth , and Let r = the radius of the Earth .
Thus , c = 2πr Let x = the distance from the Earth ’ s surface when 2 meters ( 200 cms ) is added to the rope — the increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is then ( r + x ) You may not remember these calculations , but you were taught them in school .
The circumference of the sphere , c , or it ’ s radius , r , doesn ’ t matter ; the answer is always the same .
The 40,070 Km is irrelevant , put there to make things look harder than they are .

I’m sure you remember 2016. The year of the Brexit referendum, the year when Donald Trump won the presidential election. How well, how accurately, do you remember the campaigns, the slogans? I remember Take Back Control, £350 Million for the NHS, Make America Great Again, Drain the Swamp, and Crooked Hillary, and Lock Her Up. These were all on the winning side; there must have been slogans that the losers used, but they don’t immediately come to mind.
What about the 2019 General Election in the UK? I remember Get Brexit Done. The 2020 US presidential election? There was Sleepy Joe, but Joe Biden’s response passed me by. In the months before election, we heard Electoral Fraud, and afterwards I WON!, Stolen, and Electoral Fraud again.
These phrases are all short and snappy, and significantly, they were all frequently repeated; it’s no wonder I remember them. I know I listened and watched debates, but I can’t recall any great detail from them. This inability to remember isn’t strange; our memories, unless reinforced, decay quite rapidly. If you hear a speech one day, you will remember very little the next day, other than whether the speech was ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Formal lectures are a poor way of getting information across; four facts is the most adults will reliably remember.
The results in the 2016 votes have been the subject of many post-mortems in an attempt to understand how the results came about, for both were unexpected. (While Nigel Farage was very happy, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson looked shell-shocked immediately afterwards, as if they not only didn’t expect to win, but that they didn’t want to win. Mrs Trump, reportedly, was unhappy about the win.) These analyses are on the basis of types of voters and how they thought. I want to look at these three events rather differently, as successful marketing.
Daniel Kahneman is an Israeli psychologist and economist, renowned for his work in decision making and behavioural economics; he won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2002*. Kahneman published Thinking, Fast and Slow in 2011. Much of this work was done with Amos Tversky who died young. Their work includes cognitive biases, a theory of thinking, and the idea of happiness. The book is 500 pages long; I’m only going to consider the Fast and Slow Thinking aspects.
The basic idea is simple; there are two types of decision making processes in the brain. The Fast type deals with the trivial “decisions” of everyday life. It’s automatic and unconscious. So, when we want to enter a room, we find the door, and knowing how a door works, open it and enter. If we didn’t know what a door was, or how one opens, we would have to use Slow thinking to work it out consciously and deliberately — this has been experimentally confirmed†. This takes time and effort, and if we had to do this for every trivial “decision” we wouldn’t get very far. Fast thinking gets round this. It’s said, though the basis for this isn’t clear, that we make 35,000 “decisions” a day, of which 98% are Fast. Kahneman and others give examples of problems that are usually solved with either Fast or Slow thinking. Typical examples of questions include the following: (The first two are Fast questions, the second two are Slow questions; the answers are in brackets after the question.)
(1) Add 2 + 2 (4)
(2) A child’s bat and ball set costs £1.10. The bat costs £1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? (10p)
(3) Multiply 17 x 24 (408)
(4) A rope which fits snugly around the Earth’s equator is 40,070 Km long. If the rope is made 2 meters longer, how far above the Earth’s surface will it be? (about 32 cms)
(5) If we repeat exercise (4), but with a rope around a football, and then lengthen it by 2 meters, how far from the football will the rope be? (about 32 cms)
Just to be sure we are all on the same “wavelength”, please do this poll, and then click on the Show Results button:
Correct Incorrect
(1) Answer = 4
(2) Answer = 10p
(3) Answer = 408
(4) Answer = about 32 cms
(5) Answer = about 32 cms
The first question is ludicrously easy; none of us needs to think about that. The multiplication (3) is harder, the answer doesn’t come immediately, and we have to work it out or use a calculator.
It’s not at all intuitive that the answers to the questions about the rope are the same in both cases; indeed, the question is often used as a Fast question, expecting the answers to be a few millimeters, and a meter or two respectively. The given answer for the bat and ball question is incorrect; the ball costs five pence. (The workings are shown at the end of the post.) I have primed you by including ten pence in the description, and Fast thinking has latched onto this to give an answer which seems about right — it has satisficed. For many everyday problems such an answer would be acceptable, even if wrong. Elections and referendums aren’t everyday problems, though.
The following Mind Map shows more detail of Fast and Slow thinking.
It’s quite complicated; take a few slow-thinking moments to study it.
Notice particularly how the Fast system works; it’s automatic, intuitive, but can make mistakes; the solutions are “good enough”. The Slow system needs time, effort and concentration. Notice “What you see is all there is” on the Slow side; it’s like taking things at face value and not questioning them. Fast thinking is easy thinking or cognition, and is used in marketing because it can be induced:
Look at how the inputs can be manipulated; a clear and simple message which is repeated. The inputs do not need to be factual or true. And on the output side, things feel familiar and true, and we happily accept them.
Look back at the slogans at the start of this post. What does Take Back Control really mean? What have we lost control of? How will regaining control actually help us in our daily lives? If we want to Get Brexit Done, what will this mean in practice? Where will we be afterwards?
Make America Great Again sounds as if we want to regain our rightful place in the world order. So, how are we going to achieve this, how will we regain what we have lost? Is this spelled out? What is the Swamp? It’s the idea that Washington is full of corrupt politicians, civil servants, and lobbyists who are all engaged in a massive Deep State conspiracy, with Trump the one who will fight against it to free the US from its clutches, as if he were a Saviour, a Messiah. I hope to write about conspiracies soon.
Does the Crooked Hillary/Lock Her Up pairing remind you of anything? Mull this over; during (some types of) church services, the priest at prayer will ask for intercessions; and the congregation will respond. For example, in the Church of England:
Priest: Lord, in your mercy
All: hear our prayer
Priest: Lord, hear us
All: Lord, graciously hear us
Trump: Crooked Hillary
All: Lock Her Up
Trump: Crooked Hillary
All: Lock Her Up
More recently, we’ve heard of Sleepy Joe. We’re supposed to think that Joe Biden is dementing and barely capable of thought. Are any of you neurologists or geriatricians? Do you really know how dementia presents? What is the likelihood of a man of his age, 78, having dementia? What’s the difference between dementia and the normal processes of ageing? (The risk of dementia at 78 is about 17% overall; that is, someone of that age is much more likely not to have dementia. The risk at 74 is slightly lower.)
Most people get their news and information from TV and newspapers, though circulations are falling. The Flesch and Flesch-Kincaid readability tests indicate how hard or easy passages are to read and understand**. Tabloids such as the Sun are much easier to read than the Financial Times. Easy reading uses short sentences and monosyllabic words. If you’ve watched a TV dramatisation of a classic novel you will have noticed how simplified the drama is; sometimes several characters in the original are removed. It’s simply not possible to include all the “action” of the novel in a few dramatic episodes.
Likewise with TV news; it presents a simplified version of events, one suitable for everyone. Indeed, the content of a TV news bulletin is often less than the content of a single broadsheet page. (As well, TV executives are always striving for bigger audiences; there are more people who are less-well educated than there are people who are well-educated.) Summaries of dense texts are often available for “busy executives” and “study guides” are aids for kids preparing for exams. I mentioned that Kahneman’s book is 500 pages long, about 150,000 words; I simply cannot include all this in a post of this length (1,600 words) nor can I even include all the detail of the relevant parts of Fast and Slow thinking.
Many people are busy enough without having to spend time and energy researching political slogans; they osmotically absorb the messages of the marketeers, the “three word slogans”, after having been primed repeatedly. Their understanding has been induced. And now, Feeling Good about this, it’s going to be very difficult to change their minds. Marketing politicians aren’t going to give up on such a useful tool either.
* Not quite a Nobel; strictly, the prize wasn’t on Nobel’s original list; it was added as a Memorial Prize in 1968.
† In an experiment, students were shown into a room and given a task (which was irrelevant). After completing this, they were told to leave the room by another door. This door had the handle on the same side as the hinges, so that the door didn’t open normally. It took the students several minutes to work out how to open the door.
** The grade level for this post is about 8, meaning that it should be easily understood by 13 to 14 year olds.
Answers
(2) A child’s bat and ball set costs £1.10. The bat costs £1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
bat + ball = £1.10
bat = (ball + £1.00)
(ball + £1.00) + ball = £1.10
2 ball + £1.00 = £1.10
2 ball = £1.10 – £1.00 = 0.10 (ten pence)
ball = 0.05 (five pence)
(4) A rope which fits snugly around the Earth’s equator is 40,070 Km long. If the rope is made 2 meters longer, how far above the Earth’s surface will it be?
Let c = the circumference of the Earth, and
Let r = the radius of the Earth. Thus, c = 2πr
π = 3.14 (or 22/7)
Let x = the distance from the Earth’s surface when 2 meters (200 cms) is added to the rope — the increase in the Earth’s radius which is then (r + x)
c = 2πr
c + 200 = 2π(r + x) = 2πr + 2πx
2πr + 200 = 2πr + 2πx
200 = 2πx
200/2π = x
200/2(3.14) = x
200/6.28 = x
200/6.28 = 32.18 = x = about 32 cms.
You may not remember these calculations, but you were taught them in school. The circumference of the sphere, c, or it’s radius, r, doesn’t matter; the answer is always the same. The 40,070 Km is irrelevant, put there to make things look harder than they are.


sluggerotoole--2020-11-24--[Un]Learning from Covid: For better politics, slow down and stop trying to win [every] argument.

So , we have a vaccine .
Actually , we have several and possibly several more to come .
Of my most pessimistic friends who have been following the granular scientific detail say that this Corona scare should be all over bar the shouting ( and there ’ s been a lot of that ) by June .
There are lots of speculations about how effective a vaccine has to be to work , but as Stephen Bush on the New Statesman has pointed out , the BCG injection was only 80 % effective and yet it more or less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of life quality squasher .
This is where I endorse Robert ’ s highlighting of slow and fast thinking .
I noted back in April , “ international collaboration is fast-forwarding testing techniques so we will get more precise information about who has the virus and who has had the virus now in the short to medium term and then a vaccine in the longer term.
” That won ’ t be much compensation for those who don ’ t make it through ( it ’ s far from over in case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opposite ) , but we sit a long from the bleak coverage of March and April .
Turns out , we are capable of effective collective actions , and that our wellbeing relies on more than the sum of ‘ us ’ as individuals .
That ’ s good for us to recognise and learn from .
The Oxford Astro Zeneca vaccine was a huge expensive and speculative enterprise but it was a genuinely powerful partnership between public and private research resources .
Much of the internationalised learning came out of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Much that it was falling into disrepute it reminds us that co-operation does not always require formal agreements that come at the speed of tar melting , but also that multilateral co-operation is capable of generating massive public goods .
This contrasts with an often stupid public debate in which single data points have been promoted to articles of faith , often depending on your own sense of mortality or vulnerability to the ravages of what in its most extreme form is a pretty savage and unrelenting disease .
As Tim Hardford notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ See also Ed Straw ’ s distinction between the systemic and systematic approaches : This stuff may not seem to matter in the short term , but one of the opportunities the Covid crisis has afforded us is to revisit Miyamoto Musashi ’ s advice from our original study of Unionism , that “ In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things ” .
The figures in the south yesterday suggested no new deaths ( which the Chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a glitch due to few new figures being collected over the weekend ) , suggest the south should be heading for a lowering from Level 5 .
Then perhaps finally , the southern government will be allowed to get on and take responsibility for implementing it ’ s aptly named Framework for Living with Covid without its own advisors precipitating a hasty slamming on of the public policy brakes , when the evidence was already in level 3 was having an effect .
The truth is complicated .
As guest blogger The Dissenter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regime in our residential homes , perhaps the best way to influence government is not to shout , but to do the work and lay out a picture as clearly and unemotionally as you can , and leave others free to make up their minds .
And as we have seen , those who shout loudest are apt to be the first to break their own rules , be they journalists or politicians desperate to get noticed at a time when necessary action is more important that who gets the headlines .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forms of story gathering .
Photo by Anna Tarazevich is licensed under CC0

So, we have a vaccine. Actually, we have several and possibly several more to come. Of my most pessimistic friends who have been following the granular scientific detail say that this Corona scare should be all over bar the shouting (and there’s been a lot of that) by June.
There are lots of speculations about how effective a vaccine has to be to work, but as Stephen Bush on the New Statesman has pointed out, the BCG injection was only 80% effective and yet it more or less wiped out TB as a killer and end of life quality squasher. This is where I endorse Robert’s highlighting of slow and fast thinking.
I noted back in April, “international collaboration is fast-forwarding testing techniques so we will get more precise information about who has the virus and who has had the virus now in the short to medium term and then a vaccine in the longer term.”
That won’t be much compensation for those who don’t make it through (it’s far from over in case I’m giving the impression of the opposite), but we sit a long from the bleak coverage of March and April. Turns out, we are capable of effective collective actions, and that our wellbeing relies on more than the sum of ‘us’ as individuals.
That’s good for us to recognise and learn from. The Oxford Astro Zeneca vaccine was a huge expensive and speculative enterprise but it was a genuinely powerful partnership between public and private research resources. Much of the internationalised learning came out of the public university systems of many countries.
Much that it was falling into disrepute it reminds us that co-operation does not always require formal agreements that come at the speed of tar melting, but also that multilateral co-operation is capable of generating massive public goods.
This contrasts with an often stupid public debate in which single data points have been promoted to articles of faith, often depending on your own sense of mortality or vulnerability to the ravages of what in its most extreme form is a pretty savage and unrelenting disease.
As Tim Hardford notes in his piece for Prospect Magazine:
The truth, it turns out, is complicated. But complicated is no way to win a shouting match. If we want to understand the virus—and, for that matter, anything else in a complex world—we must first give up on the illusion that what passes for public “debate” is about anything more than scoring cheap points, which inevitably come at the cost of the whole truth.
See also Ed Straw’s distinction between the systemic and systematic approaches:
Powered by RedCircle
This stuff may not seem to matter in the short term, but one of the opportunities the Covid crisis has afforded us is to revisit Miyamoto Musashi’s advice from our original study of Unionism, that “In strategy it is important to see distant things as if they were close and to take a distanced view of close things”.
The figures in the south yesterday suggested no new deaths (which the Chief Medical Officer Tony Holohan warned was possibly a glitch due to few new figures being collected over the weekend), suggest the south should be heading for a lowering from Level 5.
Then perhaps finally, the southern government will be allowed to get on and take responsibility for implementing it’s aptly named Framework for Living with Covid without its own advisors precipitating a hasty slamming on of the public policy brakes, when the evidence was already in level 3 was having an effect.
The truth is complicated. As guest blogger The Dissenter demonstrated when he looked at the testing regime in our residential homes, perhaps the best way to influence government is not to shout, but to do the work and lay out a picture as clearly and unemotionally as you can, and leave others free to make up their minds.
And as we have seen, those who shout loudest are apt to be the first to break their own rules, be they journalists or politicians desperate to get noticed at a time when necessary action is more important that who gets the headlines. This is why we need to embrace long forms of story gathering.
Photo by Anna Tarazevich is licensed under CC0


sluggerotoole--2020-11-24--To mask or not to mask?

To mask or not to mask?

The recent publication of a Danish study into the efficacy of mask-wearing to prevent the wearer from becoming infected with the coronavirus has become very controversial .
Some have suggested that mask-wearing confers no benefit to the wearer .
The question of whether “ to mask or not to mask ” is now a political one .
I ’ m going to look at the Danish study , and Prof Carl Heneghan ’ s response — the view that he said Facebook had censored ( here ) .
The Danish study is here : Prof Heneghan ’ s response in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a couple of articles free , otherwise ££ ) is here : Let ’ s look at what the Danish study says .
The researchers ’ objective was : “ To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers ’ risk for SARS-CoV-2 in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures ” .
They designed a randomised controlled trial of mask-wearing against not wearing a mask ( “ controls ” ) ; the setting was “ Denmark ” , and masks were to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at home .
At the time of the study , the community rate of infection was 2 % as estimated by “ the authorities ” , and the number of participants was designed to show a reduction to 1 % , a 50 % reduction .
4636 participants would give the trial 80 % power at 5 % significance .
They recruited over 6000 people , anticipating a 20 % loss to follow up .
A small number of infections was detected in both groups , 42 in the mask group , 53 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the home were reported by 52 people in the mask group , of whom 2 developed infection , and 39 in the no-mask group of whom 1 developed infection .
This , the authors say , suggested “ that the source of most observed infections was outside the home ” .
The authors noted the limitations to the study : “ Inconclusive results , missing data , variable adherence , patient-reported findings on home tests , no blinding , and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is , the trial did not show that mask wearing outside the home reduced Covid infection in the studied individuals .
No other question was asked or answered in this trial ; the trial did not “ give any answers ” .
In particular , the trial did not show that not wearing a mask is appropriate ; no trial can answer a question that the trial didn ’ t ask .
Anyone who has ever tried to do a randomised controlled trial will know just how difficult it is .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beforehand , and to have a statistically sufficient number of participants .
Often , the specification is little more than an educated guess .
Here , a 50 % reduction was the target , but other values , bigger or smaller , could have been used .
Further , trials often include assumptions — not always recognised — and any answers are dependent on statistical analysis .
The researchers report on the limitations of the trial as they saw them .
I ’ m not clear what “ the community ” means in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m thinking of public transport and getting to work , for instance .
( The researchers may have included this detail in the Supplement , but the links to the pdf files don ’ t work for me . )
It ’ s not clear if the study was in a rural or urban setting or a mixed environment .
What does “ the home ” mean in Denmark ?
More people live in flats there than in the UK , where homeownership is more common .
Does , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communal halls and lifts in a block of flats ?
The authors assume that most infections occurred outside the home .
Can this assumption be justified ?
The mechanics of statistical calculations have been relieved by computers ; previously these were very tedious .
It was important to discuss any trial with a statistical beforehand .
Today , it ’ s not uncommon for researchers to present a computer program with data , and “ torture the data ” to get a valid result — I am emphatically not suggesting this was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yes/no or black/white answers .
Statistics deals in probabilities .
In testing the hypothesis that mask-wearing reduces the wearers ’ chances of becoming infected by 50 % , we are employing the null hypothesis and Fisher ’ s method .
This is where it all gets complicated with double negatives and the like , but bear with me .
The null hypothesis says that mask-wearing has no effect compared to the “ controls ” , and we then test our results against this , trying to disprove the null hypothesis .
What this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mask-wearing hypothesis is true , it tells us the probability of getting the survey results that were obtained if the hypothesis is true .
The smaller the p value , the smaller the probability of getting the survey results if our hypothesis were true ; this is not the same as showing that the mask hypothesis is true .
The two are not the same .
There ’ s just a little more in that vein .
We read about p values of 0.05 or 5 % .
The p is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejected , and the smaller the value of p , the more likely we are to reject the null hypothesis .
This value of p is the benchmark , the gold standard in medical research .
It was introduced by Fisher in the 1930s .
However , when he was asked for his rationale , he had to concede that there wasn ’ t any ; the number was “ convenient ” .
It is arbitrary .
This glimpse into the theory of statistics is , I ’ m afraid , more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing that many would feel the need for a lie down afterwards .
Nonetheless , it ’ s important to be aware of the limitations of statistics , as well as the difficulties in doing trials .
Professor Heneghan , in a Spectator article entitled Landmark Danish study finds no significant effect for facemark wearers discusses the results of the trial .
The Spectator is a long-established weekly magazine about politics ; it is owned by the Barclay brothers who also own The Daily Telegraph .
It is generally small-c conservative , supporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was Boris Johnson .
He continued : “ When it comes to masks , it appears there is still little good evidence they prevent the spread of airborne diseases.
” [ Emphasis added ] And then , “ The only studies which have shown masks to be effective at stopping airborne diseases have been ‘ observational ’ — which observe the people who ordinarily use masks , rather than attempting to create a randomised control group.
” [ Emphasis in the original ] Thus , “ This is why large , randomised trials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so important if we want to understand the impact of measures like face masks.
” He concludes : “ And now that we have properly rigorous scientific research we can rely on , the evidence shows that wearing masks in the community does not significantly reduce the rates of infection.
” [ Emphasis added ] Compare that with the researchers ’ conclusion : Remember , a trial is designed to answer one question ; here this was about whether masks protect the wearer .
The trial wasn ’ t designed to look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prof Heneghan says , for that is a different question .
As above , no trial can answer a question that the trial didn ’ t ask .
So why is Prof Heneghan conflating the two questions — whether masks protect the wearer , and whether masks prevent or reduce the spread of infection in the community — with the unvoiced implication of spread to others ?
That is a very political question , and the Spectator is a political magazine .
You might wonder if the Spectator tends to the right-wing libertarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are frowned upon as a breach of liberty .
Making mask-wearing compulsory is such a breach , for example .
You might even wonder if Prof Heneghan is looking for articles that support this view .
It ’ s very clear , if you pay close attention to what the researchers described , and you understand how statistics “ work ” , you will come to entirely different conclusions to those described in Prof Heneghan ’ s article .
But if you only read Prof Heneghan ’ s article you could come to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another example of Fast and Slow Thinking in Politics ( here ) in action .
Scientific papers by their very nature are turgid and indigestible ; it takes effort to read them .
Articles in the Spectator are for a general readership , where the readers do not stop to think or question things that seem so blatantly obvious .
And so mischief and misunderstanding spreads .
To summarise ; Prof Heneghan is saying that for mask-wearing in the community there is “ still little good evidence they prevent the spread of airborne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the effect of masks on the wearer in a setting where mask-wearing was uncommon , it was not about the airborne spread of disease in general or to others .
As the trial authors say : I appreciate that parts of this post are a much more difficult read than is usual on Slugger , but I hope it ’ s been worth the effort .
There ’ s now an extensive literature about how to read a medical paper .
If you want to know more , Prof Trisha Greenhalgh ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
My thanks are due to SeaanUiNeill for critically reading earlier drafts of this post .
Photo by coyot is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

The recent publication of a Danish study into the efficacy of mask-wearing to prevent the wearer from becoming infected with the coronavirus has become very controversial.
Some have suggested that mask-wearing confers no benefit to the wearer. The question of whether “to mask or not to mask” is now a political one.
I’m going to look at the Danish study, and Prof Carl Heneghan’s response — the view that he said Facebook had censored (here).
The Danish study is here:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
Prof Heneghan’s response in an article in the Spectator (you get a couple of articles free, otherwise ££) is here:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-#
Let’s look at what the Danish study says. The researchers’ objective was:
“To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers’ risk for SARS-CoV-2 in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures”.
They designed a randomised controlled trial of mask-wearing against not wearing a mask (“controls”); the setting was “Denmark”, and masks were to be worn in the community but not at home. At the time of the study, the community rate of infection was 2% as estimated by “the authorities”, and the number of participants was designed to show a reduction to 1%, a 50% reduction. 4636 participants would give the trial 80% power at 5% significance. They recruited over 6000 people, anticipating a 20% loss to follow up.
A small number of infections was detected in both groups, 42 in the mask group, 53 in the no-mask group. Covid infections in the home were reported by 52 people in the mask group, of whom 2 developed infection, and 39 in the no-mask group of whom 1 developed infection. This, the authors say, suggested “that the source of most observed infections was outside the home”.
The authors noted the limitations to the study:
“Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.” [Emphasis added]
Their conclusion was:
“The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.”
That is, the trial did not show that mask wearing outside the home reduced Covid infection in the studied individuals. No other question was asked or answered in this trial; the trial did not “give any answers”. In particular, the trial did not show that not wearing a mask is appropriate; no trial can answer a question that the trial didn’t ask.
Anyone who has ever tried to do a randomised controlled trial will know just how difficult it is. It is important to exactly specify a question beforehand, and to have a statistically sufficient number of participants. Often, the specification is little more than an educated guess. Here, a 50% reduction was the target, but other values, bigger or smaller, could have been used.
Further, trials often include assumptions — not always recognised — and any answers are dependent on statistical analysis.
The researchers report on the limitations of the trial as they saw them. I’m not clear what “the community” means in Denmark compared say to N Ireland. I’m thinking of public transport and getting to work, for instance. (The researchers may have included this detail in the Supplement, but the links to the pdf files don’t work for me.) It’s not clear if the study was in a rural or urban setting or a mixed environment.
What does “the home” mean in Denmark? More people live in flats there than in the UK, where homeownership is more common. Does, for example, “the home” include the communal halls and lifts in a block of flats?
The authors assume that most infections occurred outside the home. Can this assumption be justified?
The mechanics of statistical calculations have been relieved by computers; previously these were very tedious. It was important to discuss any trial with a statistical beforehand. Today, it’s not uncommon for researchers to present a computer program with data, and “torture the data” to get a valid result — I am emphatically not suggesting this was the case here.
Statistics do not give yes/no or black/white answers. Statistics deals in probabilities. In testing the hypothesis that mask-wearing reduces the wearers’ chances of becoming infected by 50%, we are employing the null hypothesis and Fisher’s method. This is where it all gets complicated with double negatives and the like, but bear with me.
The null hypothesis says that mask-wearing has no effect compared to the “controls”, and we then test our results against this, trying to disprove the null hypothesis. What this then shows is not the probability that the mask-wearing hypothesis is true, it tells us the probability of getting the survey results that were obtained if the hypothesis is true. The smaller the p value, the smaller the probability of getting the survey results if our hypothesis were true; this is not the same as showing that the mask hypothesis is true. The two are not the same.
There’s just a little more in that vein. We read about p values of 0.05 or 5%. The p is the probability that the null hypothesis can be rejected, and the smaller the value of p, the more likely we are to reject the null hypothesis. This value of p is the benchmark, the gold standard in medical research. It was introduced by Fisher in the 1930s. However, when he was asked for his rationale, he had to concede that there wasn’t any; the number was “convenient”. It is arbitrary.
This glimpse into the theory of statistics is, I’m afraid, more than a bit grim, the sort of thing that many would feel the need for a lie down afterwards. Nonetheless, it’s important to be aware of the limitations of statistics, as well as the difficulties in doing trials.
Professor Heneghan, in a Spectator article entitled Landmark Danish study finds no significant effect for facemark wearers discusses the results of the trial. The Spectator is a long-established weekly magazine about politics; it is owned by the Barclay brothers who also own The Daily Telegraph. It is generally small-c conservative, supporting the Conservative party. A previous editor was Boris Johnson.
Prof Heneghan began by asking:
“Do face masks work? Earlier this year, the UK government decided that masks could play a significant role in stopping Covid-19 and made masks mandatory in a number of public places. But are these policies backed by the scientific evidence?” [Emphasis added] He continued: “In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19…it seems that any effect masks have on preventing the spread of the disease in the community is small.” [Emphasis added]
He continued: “When it comes to masks, it appears there is still little good evidence they prevent the spread of airborne diseases.” [Emphasis added] And then, “The only studies which have shown masks to be effective at stopping airborne diseases have been ‘observational’ — which observe the people who ordinarily use masks, rather than attempting to create a randomised control group.” [Emphasis in the original]
Thus, “This is why large, randomised trials like this most recent Danish study are so important if we want to understand the impact of measures like face masks.” He concludes:
“And now that we have properly rigorous scientific research we can rely on, the evidence shows that wearing masks in the community does not significantly reduce the rates of infection.” [Emphasis added]
Compare that with the researchers’ conclusion:
“The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.”
Remember, a trial is designed to answer one question; here this was about whether masks protect the wearer. The trial wasn’t designed to look at the prevention of airborne diseases, as Prof Heneghan says, for that is a different question. As above, no trial can answer a question that the trial didn’t ask.
So why is Prof Heneghan conflating the two questions — whether masks protect the wearer, and whether masks prevent or reduce the spread of infection in the community — with the unvoiced implication of spread to others? That is a very political question, and the Spectator is a political magazine. You might wonder if the Spectator tends to the right-wing libertarian view, where government “edicts” are frowned upon as a breach of liberty. Making mask-wearing compulsory is such a breach, for example. You might even wonder if Prof Heneghan is looking for articles that support this view.
It’s very clear, if you pay close attention to what the researchers described, and you understand how statistics “work”, you will come to entirely different conclusions to those described in Prof Heneghan’s article. But if you only read Prof Heneghan’s article you could come to the conclusions he does. This is another example of Fast and Slow Thinking in Politics (here) in action. Scientific papers by their very nature are turgid and indigestible; it takes effort to read them. Articles in the Spectator are for a general readership, where the readers do not stop to think or question things that seem so blatantly obvious. And so mischief and misunderstanding spreads.
To summarise; Prof Heneghan is saying that for mask-wearing in the community there is “still little good evidence they prevent the spread of airborne diseases”. The Danish study was about the effect of masks on the wearer in a setting where mask-wearing was uncommon, it was not about the airborne spread of disease in general or to others. As the trial authors say:
“The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
I appreciate that parts of this post are a much more difficult read than is usual on Slugger, but I hope it’s been worth the effort. There’s now an extensive literature about how to read a medical paper. If you want to know more, Prof Trisha Greenhalgh’s book is the reference (here).
My thanks are due to SeaanUiNeill for critically reading earlier drafts of this post.
Photo by coyot is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-11-25--A return to Ireland’s fundamentalist and simplifying past is to “throw yourself out of sync with his

A return to Ireland’s fundamentalist and simplifying past is to “throw yourself out of sync with history…”

So at the weekend Eoghan Harris took steady aim at one of the south ’ s most sacred cows .
Unlike most of official Ireland , he looked at the first Bloody Sunday through the prism of a Liam Weldon song , Dark Horse on the Wind that warned how “ the warriors spring from the earth to maim and kill their own ” : RTÉ ’ s non-stop stream of nationalist necrophilia , with no balancing programmes such as Spotlight on the Troubles and Cops on the Frontline .
RTÉ ’ s latest offering , Bloody Sunday , 1920 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tried to deal with the two sets of killings that day .
But it did not hammer home two things .
First , Michael Collins ’ s much-vaunted operation barely dented British intelligence in Dublin for the simple reason that only seven of the 15 killed were intelligence officers .
The rest of the victims comprised two ordinary courts martial officers , one RIC , two Auxiliaries and three innocent civilians who deserve remembrance .
Patrick Joseph McCormack , in Ireland to buy horses , was from a prominent Castlebar family .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Thomas Smith of Morehampton Road a Protestant landlord .
Second , the film failed to probe the morality of a botched operation that still incites retrospective tribal gloating in Sinn Féin and nationalist circles .
For years , Vinny Byrne ’ s cackling face cheerfully reassured potential recruits to the Recurring IRA how justified and how easy it was to “ plug ” helpless men .
Does it not bother us that the Provos used Byrne and Bloody Sunday to justify the most brutal murders in Northern Ireland ?
But it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsibility for what , in half the cases , was cold-blooded murder .
Far from the clinical Collins precision of folklore , the attempt to wipe out British intelligence was a sloppy operation , with names ( and wrong addresses ) being added on the morning of the killings .
When I mention Michael Collins ’ s moral responsibility , I am also thinking of the Squad ’ s youngest killer , Charlie Dalton , who was 16 when Collins recruited him .
Dalton had just turned 17 when he helped to shoot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on Bloody Sunday .
Charlie Dalton was marked for life by what he did that day .
In 1922 , as a senior Free State officer , he helped murder three innocent Fianna boys near the Red Cow .
What happened that day in Croke Park , in response to Collins ’ s earlier killings , was an atrocity .
But a whole country is mourning “ our ” dead while Collins ’ s victims are treated as collateral damage .
But we lose our humanity if we turn others into abstract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ casually as in Natural Born Killers .
To hold our humanity we need to put a face on “ our ” IRA victims and not look away as they die .
So let me put a face on Captain WF Newberry , a court martial officer , shot in front of his wife in Lower Pembroke Street .
Captain Newberry was not an intelligence officer .
Few intelligence officers go on duty with a pregnant wife sleeping beside them .
Bill Stapleton , who shot him , recalled without regret : “ He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was attempting to escape by the window he was shot a number of times .
The man ’ s wife was standing in the corner of the room and was in a terrified and hysterical condition.
” But he is evasive about the desperate bloody details .
He and Joe Leonard fired through the inner bedroom door which the hunted couple had blockaded .
They wounded Newberry who ran for the window where they shot him repeatedly .
His corpse hung out the window .
His wife could only throw a coat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tragedy was that Captain Newberry was already married in England : his “ wife ” turned out to be a woman who was pregnant with his child .
Traumatised , for three weeks she seemed to hear the laughter of Stapleton and Leonard as they washed her husband ’ s blood off at a sink .
She died as nameless as her stillborn child .
To this day , researchers don ’ t know her name .
But she was most likely Irish .
I see the Abbey Theatre and the GAA are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commissioning 14 writers to write short monologues remembering “ our ” Croke Park victims .
By not including some victims of the IRA the Abbey retreated from the redemptive power of art to show us the face of the other .
It would have been more cathartic if some of Collins ’ s victims were brought to life .
More dramatic , too – Patrick McCormack and Wilde lived lives that were racy enough to give some humour .
And the nameless ‘ Mrs Newberry ’ is the stuff of Greek tragedy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has given way to a wave of anti British sentiment in the south , but as this Twitter account almost daily reminds the stories that tell of our own greatness often depends on disposing of difficult facts that stand in the way of the stories we like to tell about our own preferred greatness… The Irish American professor of literature Joseph Campbell once warned us about the simplifying tropes of religious fundamentalism , but the parallels hold for the more secular types we ’ re so familiar with in both of Ireland ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abstractions can be injurious to our societies ’ future health : The moral order has to catch up with the moral necessities of actual life in time , here and now .
And that is what we are not doing .
Old-time religion belongs to another age , another people , another set of human values , another universe .
By going back you throw yourself out of sync with history .
Photo by stevepb is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

So at the weekend Eoghan Harris took steady aim at one of the south’s most sacred cows. Unlike most of official Ireland, he looked at the first Bloody Sunday through the prism of a Liam Weldon song, Dark Horse on the Wind that warned how “the warriors spring from the earth to maim and kill their own”:
RTÉ’s non-stop stream of nationalist necrophilia, with no balancing programmes such as Spotlight on the Troubles and Cops on the Frontline. RTÉ’s latest offering, Bloody Sunday, 1920, was one of the better documentaries and tried to deal with the two sets of killings that day. But it did not hammer home two things. First, Michael Collins’s much-vaunted operation barely dented British intelligence in Dublin for the simple reason that only seven of the 15 killed were intelligence officers. The rest of the victims comprised two ordinary courts martial officers, one RIC, two Auxiliaries and three innocent civilians who deserve remembrance. Patrick Joseph McCormack, in Ireland to buy horses, was from a prominent Castlebar family. Leonard Wilde was a former monk, and Thomas Smith of Morehampton Road a Protestant landlord. Second, the film failed to probe the morality of a botched operation that still incites retrospective tribal gloating in Sinn Féin and nationalist circles. For years, Vinny Byrne’s cackling face cheerfully reassured potential recruits to the Recurring IRA how justified and how easy it was to “plug” helpless men. Does it not bother us that the Provos used Byrne and Bloody Sunday to justify the most brutal murders in Northern Ireland? But it is Michael Collins himself who must bear moral responsibility for what, in half the cases, was cold-blooded murder. Far from the clinical Collins precision of folklore, the attempt to wipe out British intelligence was a sloppy operation, with names (and wrong addresses) being added on the morning of the killings.
He goes on…
When I mention Michael Collins’s moral responsibility, I am also thinking of the Squad’s youngest killer, Charlie Dalton, who was 16 when Collins recruited him. Dalton had just turned 17 when he helped to shoot two British officers, Dowling and Montgomery, on Bloody Sunday. Charlie Dalton was marked for life by what he did that day. In 1922, as a senior Free State officer, he helped murder three innocent Fianna boys near the Red Cow. What happened that day in Croke Park, in response to Collins’s earlier killings, was an atrocity. But a whole country is mourning “our” dead while Collins’s victims are treated as collateral damage. But we lose our humanity if we turn others into abstract figures who can be blown away as casually as in Natural Born Killers.
And…
To hold our humanity we need to put a face on “our” IRA victims and not look away as they die. So let me put a face on Captain WF Newberry, a court martial officer, shot in front of his wife in Lower Pembroke Street. Captain Newberry was not an intelligence officer. Few intelligence officers go on duty with a pregnant wife sleeping beside them. Bill Stapleton, who shot him, recalled without regret: “He was in his pyjamas, and as he was attempting to escape by the window he was shot a number of times. The man’s wife was standing in the corner of the room and was in a terrified and hysterical condition.” But he is evasive about the desperate bloody details. He and Joe Leonard fired through the inner bedroom door which the hunted couple had blockaded. They wounded Newberry who ran for the window where they shot him repeatedly. His corpse hung out the window. His wife could only throw a coat over his body. But the greatest tragedy was that Captain Newberry was already married in England: his “wife” turned out to be a woman who was pregnant with his child. Traumatised, for three weeks she seemed to hear the laughter of Stapleton and Leonard as they washed her husband’s blood off at a sink. She died as nameless as her stillborn child. To this day, researchers don’t know her name. But she was most likely Irish.
Finally…
I see the Abbey Theatre and the GAA are marking “our” Bloody Sunday by commissioning 14 writers to write short monologues remembering “our” Croke Park victims. By not including some victims of the IRA the Abbey retreated from the redemptive power of art to show us the face of the other. It would have been more cathartic if some of Collins’s victims were brought to life. More dramatic, too – Patrick McCormack and Wilde lived lives that were racy enough to give some humour. And the nameless ‘Mrs Newberry’ is the stuff of Greek tragedy.
No doubt a deep reflex to Brexit has given way to a wave of anti British sentiment in the south, but as this Twitter account almost daily reminds the stories that tell of our own greatness often depends on disposing of difficult facts that stand in the way of the stories we like to tell about our own preferred greatness…
#OnThisDay in 1974 the IRA murdered Heather Thompson, 17. Filling station attendant shot along with manager, Crumlin Road. A motorist stopped to buy fuel. When no one came to his car he went across to the office & discovered the two bodies. Both had been shot in the head #OTD pic.twitter.com/uI8iMh55sw — OnThisDayTheIRA (@OnThisDayPIRA) November 23, 2020
The Irish American professor of literature Joseph Campbell once warned us about the simplifying tropes of religious fundamentalism, but the parallels hold for the more secular types we’re so familiar with in both of Ireland’s political and cultural traditions. Such abstractions can be injurious to our societies’ future health:
The moral order has to catch up with the moral necessities of actual life in time, here and now. And that is what we are not doing. Old-time religion belongs to another age, another people, another set of human values, another universe. By going back you throw yourself out of sync with history.
Photo by stevepb is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-11-25--The road safety analogy which might just get us safely through a modest Christmas…

Interesting discussion on Nolan this morning , not so much for what I said , but the quote I used from one time member of the Slugger commenting parish , and one of my oldest friends in NI politics , Ian Parsley and his excellent post on Facebook as an enabling way to consider the government ’ s restrictions for Christmas… …there is a road safety analogy which I have used before ( with apologies to regular readers ! )
On one four-lane road a speed limit of 30mph was posted and it was noted the average speed of traffic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted limit was *raised* to 40mph – and the average speed on the road *fell* to 40mph .
In other words , the higher limit delivered a lower and safer speed – once drivers faced what they felt was a sensible limit , they adhered to it ; when the limit was ridiculous , they just did as they pleased .
This is all counter intuitive of course .
And since it is from a public policy viewpoint we should remember that such measures are composed of an aggregate of individual decisions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oliver responds “ it ’ s all about risk ( personal , medical , political ) ” .
This is a sound reminder that the policy is prescriptive .
Where personal risks are higher in individual cases , then a far more cautious approach is going to be needed .
But making the restrictions reasonable we might have a more reasonable expectations of getting through .
The point here is that good public policy isn ’ t always about doing the most obvious thing , but trying to bring together enough understanding from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rory Sutherland calls the sweet spot and get us to a decent outcome .
Photo by dmvl is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

Up to three households allowed to meet together indoors over Christmas period
@mickfealty | @AmandaFBelfast | Dr Mike Tildesley | Dr Tom Black 🎧 https://t.co/mRClKWXLkr pic.twitter.com/5selkDbc4P — Stephen Nolan (@StephenNolan) November 25, 2020
Interesting discussion on Nolan this morning, not so much for what I said, but the quote I used from one time member of the Slugger commenting parish, and one of my oldest friends in NI politics, Ian Parsley and his excellent post on Facebook as an enabling way to consider the government’s restrictions for Christmas…
…there is a road safety analogy which I have used before (with apologies to regular readers!) On one four-lane road a speed limit of 30mph was posted and it was noted the average speed of traffic was 45mph. Upon re-assessment, the posted limit was *raised* to 40mph – and the average speed on the road *fell* to 40mph. In other words, the higher limit delivered a lower and safer speed – once drivers faced what they felt was a sensible limit, they adhered to it; when the limit was ridiculous, they just did as they pleased.
This is all counter intuitive of course. And since it is from a public policy viewpoint we should remember that such measures are composed of an aggregate of individual decisions, where as another old friend, Quintin Oliver responds “it’s all about risk (personal, medical, political)”.
This is a sound reminder that the policy is prescriptive. Where personal risks are higher in individual cases, then a far more cautious approach is going to be needed. But making the restrictions reasonable we might have a more reasonable expectations of getting through.
The point here is that good public policy isn’t always about doing the most obvious thing, but trying to bring together enough understanding from various fields in order to hit what Rory Sutherland calls the sweet spot and get us to a decent outcome.
Photo by dmvl is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-11-25--Gordon Brown ‘gets’ that “a centre that does not listen” is not sustainable…

This is an extraordinarily sharp insight ( subs needed ) from Gordon Brown in the New Statesman which ought not escape without mention here on Slugger .
It ’ s about the future of the British Union , but from the point of view of power ( and its increasingly narrow internal distribution within the UK ) : It is too early to say whether Britain will break up , but we can say already that it is breaking down .
Wales , Liverpool and Manchester have been declaring their version of independence over their response to the pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ own nation , Scotland , already has one foot out the door of its 300-year-old Union with England .
The virus and recession – and the well-publicised splits over local lockdowns , over who manages public health and welfare best , and who pays for what – have exposed a centre that does not listen and outlying areas that do not feel they are consulted .
The pandemic has brutally exposed a centre that has control over the country ’ s resources but does not know what ’ s happening on the ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with outlying communities who have far greater local knowledge but few resources .
And Boris Johnson ’ s reported “ devolution has been a disaster ” outburst – implying his management from the centre is a great success story – shows how out of touch he is : part of that No 10 faction that does not even admit there is a problem and the days of over-centralisation are numbered .
[ Emphasis added throughout ] There ’ s an odd consonance between this true observation of Brown ’ s and the premise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind which I hope to share more broadly before the weekend ) for CongRegation.ie ’ s “ unconference ” at the weekend : Brown demonstrates that much of the sentiment driving towards Scottish independence is not just culture narratives but an understanding about power .
London looks to be on a mission to run every small unit of civilisation out of Whitehall rather than , say , allow Aberdeenshire Council to manage the affairs of Inverurie .
Neoliberalism quietly bleeding into fractal neofeudalism ?
Well , maybe .
Brown argues that large parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treated as though they were serfs , of no account : It ’ s not as though the same patterns are not to be seen in Ireland ( by which I mean both the Republic and Northern Ireland ) but Brown is thee first senior level politician in either place that has usefully copped on to this drift between how the centre understands the world and how it is experienced at the edge .
It ’ s well worth subscribing ( for free ) to the New Statesman , just to read the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Neo-Fuedalism ” by khteWisconsin is licensed under CC BY

This is an extraordinarily sharp insight (subs needed) from Gordon Brown in the New Statesman which ought not escape without mention here on Slugger. It’s about the future of the British Union, but from the point of view of power (and its increasingly narrow internal distribution within the UK):
It is too early to say whether Britain will break up, but we can say already that it is breaking down. Wales, Liverpool and Manchester have been declaring their version of independence over their response to the pandemic. And as No 10 implodes, my own nation, Scotland, already has one foot out the door of its 300-year-old Union with England. The virus and recession – and the well-publicised splits over local lockdowns, over who manages public health and welfare best, and who pays for what – have exposed a centre that does not listen and outlying areas that do not feel they are consulted.
And…
The pandemic has brutally exposed a centre that has control over the country’s resources but does not know what’s happening on the ground; whose own ignorance has been juxtaposed with outlying communities who have far greater local knowledge but few resources. And Boris Johnson’s reported “devolution has been a disaster” outburst – implying his management from the centre is a great success story – shows how out of touch he is: part of that No 10 faction that does not even admit there is a problem and the days of over-centralisation are numbered. [Emphasis added throughout]
There’s an odd consonance between this true observation of Brown’s and the premise of my own essay (the thinking behind which I hope to share more broadly before the weekend) for CongRegation.ie’s “unconference” at the weekend:
The US’s slump into circular (and exit free) culture war narratives is really a failure of the central machine of government to connect with the interests of a diverse citizenry whose parish domains in some cases lie not too far distant beyond the Washington beltway.
Brown demonstrates that much of the sentiment driving towards Scottish independence is not just culture narratives but an understanding about power. London looks to be on a mission to run every small unit of civilisation out of Whitehall rather than, say, allow Aberdeenshire Council to manage the affairs of Inverurie.
Neoliberalism quietly bleeding into fractal neofeudalism? Well, maybe. Brown argues that large parts of the UK are being now being treated as though they were serfs, of no account:
As the populist Brexit and nationalist rebellions have demonstrated, millions of people are saying they feel ignored – forgotten and invisible – and treated as second-class citizens in their own country.
It’s not as though the same patterns are not to be seen in Ireland (by which I mean both the Republic and Northern Ireland) but Brown is thee first senior level politician in either place that has usefully copped on to this drift between how the centre understands the world and how it is experienced at the edge.
It’s well worth subscribing (for free) to the New Statesman, just to read the whole thing.
“Modern America – Neo-Fuedalism” by khteWisconsin is licensed under CC BY


sluggerotoole--2020-11-25--Life, Lockdown and the Pursuit of Safety…

‘ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
’ – Benjamin Franklin In late July Trump posed a question to his haggle of Twitter followers .
He asked if the election could be delayed , citing concerns linked to Coronavirus .
Naturally , this tweet was met with furore and anger from the media and most reasonable people – even many of ‘ The Donald ’ s ’ biggest fans .
The condemnations which followed the tweet were well justified , regular elections are a mainstay of any democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trust and integrity , to suggest delaying an election is to suggest delaying a most fundamental right of a democratic , free society .
Given the anger at Donald back in July , it is quite surprising and perturbing to read that the SNP are in the process of passing a bill through the Scottish parliament that will give them the power to delay next year ’ s Scottish elections if they deem it ‘ unsafe ’ to hold them .
A law essentially giving Nicola Sturgeon the power to decide if and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise their democratic right .
Given Donald ’ s tweet was described as ‘ a chilling attack on the democratic process , ’ what are we to make of this development in Scotland ?
I have hardly heard a peep from the media about it .
I appreciate the circumstances are vastly different- an election for the president of the free world versus one for a devolved regional government .
Yet the principle in both cases is the same .
A government only holds power based upon the consent of the people it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through fixed-term elections , when the term ends the government has to fight once more for the permission of the people to continue .
Perhaps you are thinking it ’ s not a big deal , we are in the midst of a global pandemic .
Firstly considering the USA managed to pull off an election in a country of over 300 million ( even if a bit messy ) I think with a bit of creativity Scotland should be able to manage just fine .
Secondly , it ’ s not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history , even if they decide not to delay the election .
The point is that they are creating a precedent for any successor government .
That they have the power to delay an election , to delay liberty and to breach the social contract fundamental to the health of any democracy if they deem it ‘ unsafe.
’ I do not mean to attack the Scottish government per-se .
I am simply trying to highlight the sacrifices of our freedoms that have been made at the altar of safety since the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ give me liberty or give me death.
’ Not to be controversial but it appears this trope has been abandoned as we have been willing to surrender any liberty necessary to avoid any minuscule possibility of death .
When I say minuscule I don ’ t mean to downplay the tragic deaths of many but for the majority of the population , the chances of death from Covid 19 infection are no higher than the chances of dying in a road accident .
At the start of November , just a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a moment to reflect on the sacrifices of the men who gave their lives on the battlefields of Europe to guarantee the freedom and liberty of this country there was a protest in London .
It was a protest which happens annually to speak out against authoritarianism .
200 people were arrested .
They weren ’ t arrested for being violent or aggressive or anything of the sort ; they were arrested for attending an entirely peaceful protest .
The right of any free person ?
I ’ m not saying they should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying that I or you have to agree with their aims .
However in a democracy , certain rights are inalienable and fundamental , no government or police force should be able to infringe upon them .
These rights include the freedom of assembly and protest , the freedom to worship , freedom of speech and more .
Each of these rights has been attacked or abolished since the pandemic ’ s outset .
We have all remained silent in the face of it , we should be more concerned .
The virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have died too soon .
We should exercise caution and be respectful of people ’ s safety .
This does not mean that we should be threatened with arrest if we go to church or to the mosque , if we drive 10 miles down the road to see a relative or if we have the potential to be infectious .
Imagine the police having power so broad that they can arrest you if you ‘ have the potential to be infectious.
’ This is not a safety measure it is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and should scare us .
What makes the whole saga worse is that even if the trade-off of liberty for safety was worth it which I do not believe for a second , there is no consensus that lockdowns work .
Indeed many in the scientific community seem to think that stripping people of civil liberties does more harm than good .
The impact of the measures on loneliness , undetected diseases , rising levels of domestic abuse and mental health will probably be impossible to ever truly quantify however many experts think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by limiting our freedoms .
I would encourage you to read the Barrington Declaration , it is quite brief and summarises well this viewpoint .
Let me finish with this .
I haven ’ t written this to tell you to burn your masks , meet up with everyone you know and throw caution to the wind .
No doubt many of the habits we ’ ve adopted have helped .
I say that the government should not have the right to limit basic freedoms and we need to speak up to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months is not to set a precedent for the stripping of civil liberties in the future .
What happens next time there is a bad flu season ?
Surely locking the country down for a couple of months every winter would save lives .
Yes the government should encourage and incentivise us to exercise every measure of safety- they should not be able to arrest us if we pop out for milk and forget our mask .
“ France-003348 – Liberty Leading the People ” by archer10 ( Dennis ) is licensed under @ @

‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’ – Benjamin Franklin
In late July Trump posed a question to his haggle of Twitter followers. He asked if the election could be delayed, citing concerns linked to Coronavirus. Naturally, this tweet was met with furore and anger from the media and most reasonable people – even many of ‘The Donald’s’ biggest fans. The condemnations which followed the tweet were well justified, regular elections are a mainstay of any democracy, key to maintaining liberty, public trust and integrity, to suggest delaying an election is to suggest delaying a most fundamental right of a democratic, free society. Given the anger at Donald back in July, it is quite surprising and perturbing to read that the SNP are in the process of passing a bill through the Scottish parliament that will give them the power to delay next year’s Scottish elections if they deem it ‘unsafe’ to hold them. A law essentially giving Nicola Sturgeon the power to decide if and when the people should be allowed to exercise their democratic right. Given Donald’s tweet was described as ‘a chilling attack on the democratic process,’ what are we to make of this development in Scotland? I have hardly heard a peep from the media about it.
I appreciate the circumstances are vastly different- an election for the president of the free world versus one for a devolved regional government. Yet the principle in both cases is the same. A government only holds power based upon the consent of the people it represents. The people give this consent through fixed-term elections, when the term ends the government has to fight once more for the permission of the people to continue. Perhaps you are thinking it’s not a big deal, we are in the midst of a global pandemic. Firstly considering the USA managed to pull off an election in a country of over 300 million (even if a bit messy) I think with a bit of creativity Scotland should be able to manage just fine. Secondly, it’s not just about this election or this moment in history, even if they decide not to delay the election. The point is that they are creating a precedent for any successor government. That they have the power to delay an election, to delay liberty and to breach the social contract fundamental to the health of any democracy if they deem it ‘unsafe.’
I do not mean to attack the Scottish government per-se. I am simply trying to highlight the sacrifices of our freedoms that have been made at the altar of safety since the pandemic began. There is a famous quote ‘give me liberty or give me death.’ Not to be controversial but it appears this trope has been abandoned as we have been willing to surrender any liberty necessary to avoid any minuscule possibility of death. When I say minuscule I don’t mean to downplay the tragic deaths of many but for the majority of the population, the chances of death from Covid 19 infection are no higher than the chances of dying in a road accident.
At the start of November, just a few days before we as a nation took a moment to reflect on the sacrifices of the men who gave their lives on the battlefields of Europe to guarantee the freedom and liberty of this country there was a protest in London. It was a protest which happens annually to speak out against authoritarianism. 200 people were arrested. They weren’t arrested for being violent or aggressive or anything of the sort; they were arrested for attending an entirely peaceful protest. The right of any free person?
I’m not saying they should have protested, I’m not saying that I or you have to agree with their aims. However in a democracy, certain rights are inalienable and fundamental, no government or police force should be able to infringe upon them. These rights include the freedom of assembly and protest, the freedom to worship, freedom of speech and more. Each of these rights has been attacked or abolished since the pandemic’s outset. We have all remained silent in the face of it, we should be more concerned.
The virus poses a threat and we grieve those who have died too soon. We should exercise caution and be respectful of people’s safety. This does not mean that we should be threatened with arrest if we go to church or to the mosque, if we drive 10 miles down the road to see a relative or if we have the potential to be infectious. Imagine the police having power so broad that they can arrest you if you ‘have the potential to be infectious.’ This is not a safety measure it is a draconian attack on individual autonomy and liberty and should scare us.
What makes the whole saga worse is that even if the trade-off of liberty for safety was worth it which I do not believe for a second, there is no consensus that lockdowns work. Indeed many in the scientific community seem to think that stripping people of civil liberties does more harm than good. The impact of the measures on loneliness, undetected diseases, rising levels of domestic abuse and mental health will probably be impossible to ever truly quantify however many experts think that they by far offset anything achieved by limiting our freedoms. I would encourage you to read the Barrington Declaration, it is quite brief and summarises well this viewpoint.
Let me finish with this. I haven’t written this to tell you to burn your masks, meet up with everyone you know and throw caution to the wind. No doubt many of the habits we’ve adopted have helped. I say that the government should not have the right to limit basic freedoms and we need to speak up to ensure that the implication of the last few months is not to set a precedent for the stripping of civil liberties in the future. What happens next time there is a bad flu season? Surely locking the country down for a couple of months every winter would save lives. Yes the government should encourage and incentivise us to exercise every measure of safety- they should not be able to arrest us if we pop out for milk and forget our mask.
“France-003348 – Liberty Leading the People” by archer10 (Dennis) is licensed under CC BY-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-11-27--The mechanics of a unification referendum need attention

Dr Alan Renwick is Chair of the Working Group on Unification Referendums on the Island of Ireland .
He is Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London , and an expert on referendums around the world .
An independent group of academics has just published a report on how any future referendums on the question of Irish unification would best be designed and conducted .
The group , which I chair , has no view on whether such referendums – or unification itself – should happen .
It just looks at the mechanics of the process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ – if referendums happen , they need for everyone ’ s sake to be run fairly and smoothly .
The conclusions set out in the report are provisional , and the group is keen now to get feedback on them .
Some might be surprised that an academic group is tackling such a contentious subject .
But for many the debate on this issue is already happening , and it ’ s important that it should be well informed .
A referendum on unification could take place .
It ’ s neither imminent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a majority against unification , and no one knows how views might evolve in the wake of Brexit and Covid .
But the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement requires the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to call a vote if a majority for unification looks likely .
You might think the Agreement would also set out the process for such a vote .
But while it lays down some key parameters , it leaves much unspecified .
And no one has ever filled in the gaps .
Referendums on this issue would not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be planned for .
One of the group ’ s central conclusions is that such votes should only be held with a clear plan for what follows .
This plan would need to be agreed by the British and Irish governments – consulting closely with elected representatives , civic groups , and members of the public – by the time any referendums were called .
The 1998 Agreement is clear that unification can ’ t happen without a referendum vote for it in Northern Ireland .
We conclude that a referendum would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
In each case , a simple majority of 50 % + 1 of the votes cast would decide the matter .
That ’ s clear from the Agreement , and the only approach that treats the two options equally .
While the basic sovereignty question is decided by simple majority , the wider ethos of the Agreement seeks consensus so far as possible .
Upholding that ethos – for example , in discussions around the design of the referendum process or the form of a united Ireland – should also be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t say how the Secretary of State should gauge whether a majority for unification looks likely .
There are multiple possible sources of evidence , including elections , opinion polls , surveys , and any vote on the issue in the Assembly .
The Secretary of State would have to take all relevant evidence into account .
Acting honestly and impartially here – and being seen to do so – is essential to maintain trust and credibility .
The Agreement is also silent on whether referendums should come before the form of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or afterwards .
There are strengths and weaknesses in both approaches , and no ideal path .
We set out three feasible routes that we think deserve further attention , which between them cover both those broad approaches .
The rules for conducting referendum campaigns need serious attention too .
The existing laws in both the UK and Ireland are badly outmoded , failing to reflect the shift of campaigning online in recent years .
Updates are urgently needed before any referendum – but especially before one on a question as momentous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear from anyone with thoughts on our provisional findings .
Responses will shape our final report , which we hope to publish in the spring .
You can read our current report and find out how to respond here .

Dr Alan Renwick is Chair of the Working Group on Unification Referendums on the Island of Ireland. He is Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London, and an expert on referendums around the world.
An independent group of academics has just published a report on how any future referendums on the question of Irish unification would best be designed and conducted. The group, which I chair, has no view on whether such referendums – or unification itself – should happen. It just looks at the mechanics of the process. But that’s vital in itself – if referendums happen, they need for everyone’s sake to be run fairly and smoothly. The conclusions set out in the report are provisional, and the group is keen now to get feedback on them.
Some might be surprised that an academic group is tackling such a contentious subject. But for many the debate on this issue is already happening, and it’s important that it should be well informed. A referendum on unification could take place. It’s neither imminent nor inevitable – opinion polls currently show a majority against unification, and no one knows how views might evolve in the wake of Brexit and Covid. But the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement requires the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to call a vote if a majority for unification looks likely.
You might think the Agreement would also set out the process for such a vote. But while it lays down some key parameters, it leaves much unspecified. And no one has ever filled in the gaps.
Referendums on this issue would not be straightforward, so would need to be planned for. One of the group’s central conclusions is that such votes should only be held with a clear plan for what follows. This plan would need to be agreed by the British and Irish governments – consulting closely with elected representatives, civic groups, and members of the public – by the time any referendums were called.
The 1998 Agreement is clear that unification can’t happen without a referendum vote for it in Northern Ireland. We conclude that a referendum would be needed in the Republic of Ireland as well. In each case, a simple majority of 50% + 1 of the votes cast would decide the matter. That’s clear from the Agreement, and the only approach that treats the two options equally.
While the basic sovereignty question is decided by simple majority, the wider ethos of the Agreement seeks consensus so far as possible. Upholding that ethos – for example, in discussions around the design of the referendum process or the form of a united Ireland – should also be a key aim.
The Agreement doesn’t say how the Secretary of State should gauge whether a majority for unification looks likely. There are multiple possible sources of evidence, including elections, opinion polls, surveys, and any vote on the issue in the Assembly. The Secretary of State would have to take all relevant evidence into account. Acting honestly and impartially here – and being seen to do so – is essential to maintain trust and credibility.
The Agreement is also silent on whether referendums should come before the form of a united Ireland has been worked out, or afterwards. There are strengths and weaknesses in both approaches, and no ideal path. We set out three feasible routes that we think deserve further attention, which between them cover both those broad approaches.
The rules for conducting referendum campaigns need serious attention too. The existing laws in both the UK and Ireland are badly outmoded, failing to reflect the shift of campaigning online in recent years. Updates are urgently needed before any referendum – but especially before one on a question as momentous as unification.
We’d like to hear from anyone with thoughts on our provisional findings. Responses will shape our final report, which we hope to publish in the spring. You can read our current report and find out how to respond here.
Read the full report here


sluggerotoole--2020-11-28--Sinn Féin’s historical revisionism has nowhere to hide

Trying to rewrite history is never a good idea .
So when Sinn Féin ’ s official social media account claimed at the weekend that “ On this day in 1905 Sinn Féin was founded ” and proceeded to say that on that day “ we outlined our position ” , it naturally raised a few eyebrows within the historian community .
The thing is with historians , they are fact-based people , so if you lie about something in history they will ruthlessly expose you for it .
The backlash to the accuracy of the Sinn Féin tweet was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow in this piece .
For a political party so proud of its history , maybe it is time they are actually taught their own history .
As mentioned above Sinn Féin claim to be founded in 1905 , this is not true , it was not until 1907 that an organisation by the name of the Sinn Féin League was established after two groups of nationalists merged , the Dungannon Clubs and Cumann na nGaedheal .
Also existed was a dual-monarchist organisation called the National Council of which Arthur Griffith was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Féin League and the National Council merged completely , and the name Sinn Féin was officially adopted for the party in 1908 .
Arthur Griffith was founding father of Sinn Fein , yet he is not widely celebrated within the party today .
Why is that ?
Arthur Griffith was a monarchist , he aspired to see Kings , Lords and Commons of Ireland , a British monarch as Head of State , this was official policy of his Sinn Féin .
Griffith was also a strong advocate for peaceful resistance .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today .
The 1916 Rising unintentionally gave rise to Sinn Féin as a prominent party , it ended up being the party associated with the organisation of the Easter Rising , which in truth was completely incorrect .
From there , nationalists flooded into the party , policies drastically changed to more deep-rooted separatist policies , de Valera became leader and Sinn Féin became government of the revolutionary state which declared its independence from the United Kingdom in 1919 .
The Anglo-Irish Treaty and the subsequent conflict it caused , let to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de Valera losing the presidency of the Dail due to his opposition to the treaty , he along with his allies proposed to leave Sinn Féin and formed Cumann na Poblachta , an anti-treaty wing of Sinn Féin .
It was not until in 1926 that de Valera finally left with his allies and formed Fianna Fail .
Pro-treaty members also left and formed Cumann na nGaedheal which would later merge with other parties to become Fine Gael .
The split of Sinn Féin led it into a period of electoral decline , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irrelevant .
In 1948 , Sinn Féin lost a court case in which they claimed ownership to funds deposited with the High Court in 1924 which belonged to the Sinn Féin party before its split .
The Sinn Féin funds case as it became known decided against Sinn Fein on the basis that the pre-1923 party was a separate party from the one that existed in the 1940 ’ s .
It was no longer even up for debate that the Sinn Féin that existed after 1923 is not remotely the same nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party that existed pre-1923 .
Not long after the ruling in the case , Sinn Féin was taken over by a rejuvenated IRA which would later adopt socialist policies for the party .
However , the party split again in 1970 .
What came out of the split was a party called Official Sinn Féin on one side which became Sinn Féin – The Workers Party in 1977 and is today simply known as The Workers Party .
Another party called Republican Sinn Féin also came out of the split , but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other side of split , a party by the name of Provisional Sinn Féin was formed on the 11th of January 1970 .
It was intrinsically linked to the Provisional IRA .
This is the party in which today ’ s Sinn Féin originated from , not that of 1907 .
Ruairí Ó Bradaigh became the first President of Provisional Sinn Fein and was succeeded by Gerry Adams in 1983 and the rest is history .
It eventually dropped the word ‘ provisional ’ from its name and became just Sinn Féin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There have been more splits in the party than you will see at gymnasium .
In truth , Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have far more claim to have been descended from the 1918 Sinn Fein than that of the Sinn Fein we see today .
All political parties have parts of their history ’ s they wish to forget , Fine Gael have the Blueshirts , Fianna Fail have Charles Haughey as examples .
Yet the breath-taking historical revisionism by Sinn Fein to try and associate themselves with the party of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led by Arthur Griffith , who would turn in his grave if he knew modern day Sinn Fein were trying to claim continuity to his party , is simply historically inaccurate and a blatant lie .
“ Sinn Féin President Mary Lou McDonald and Vice President Michelle O ’ Neill ” by Sinn Féin is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Trying to rewrite history is never a good idea. So when Sinn Féin’s official social media account claimed at the weekend that “On this day in 1905 Sinn Féin was founded” and proceeded to say that on that day “we outlined our position”, it naturally raised a few eyebrows within the historian community. The thing is with historians, they are fact-based people, so if you lie about something in history they will ruthlessly expose you for it. The backlash to the accuracy of the Sinn Féin tweet was immense and has accumulated into what will follow in this piece. For a political party so proud of its history, maybe it is time they are actually taught their own history.
As mentioned above Sinn Féin claim to be founded in 1905, this is not true, it was not until 1907 that an organisation by the name of the Sinn Féin League was established after two groups of nationalists merged, the Dungannon Clubs and Cumann na nGaedheal. Also existed was a dual-monarchist organisation called the National Council of which Arthur Griffith was a major component of. Eventually the Sinn Féin League and the National Council merged completely, and the name Sinn Féin was officially adopted for the party in 1908.
Arthur Griffith was founding father of Sinn Fein, yet he is not widely celebrated within the party today. Why is that? Arthur Griffith was a monarchist, he aspired to see Kings, Lords and Commons of Ireland, a British monarch as Head of State, this was official policy of his Sinn Féin. Griffith was also a strong advocate for peaceful resistance. The complete opposite to what Sinn Féin is today.
The 1916 Rising unintentionally gave rise to Sinn Féin as a prominent party, it ended up being the party associated with the organisation of the Easter Rising, which in truth was completely incorrect. From there, nationalists flooded into the party, policies drastically changed to more deep-rooted separatist policies, de Valera became leader and Sinn Féin became government of the revolutionary state which declared its independence from the United Kingdom in 1919.
The Anglo-Irish Treaty and the subsequent conflict it caused, let to the demise of this Sinn Féin. With de Valera losing the presidency of the Dail due to his opposition to the treaty, he along with his allies proposed to leave Sinn Féin and formed Cumann na Poblachta, an anti-treaty wing of Sinn Féin. It was not until in 1926 that de Valera finally left with his allies and formed Fianna Fail. Pro-treaty members also left and formed Cumann na nGaedheal which would later merge with other parties to become Fine Gael.
The split of Sinn Féin led it into a period of electoral decline, by 1940 the party had become completely irrelevant. In 1948, Sinn Féin lost a court case in which they claimed ownership to funds deposited with the High Court in 1924 which belonged to the Sinn Féin party before its split. The Sinn Féin funds case as it became known decided against Sinn Fein on the basis that the pre-1923 party was a separate party from the one that existed in the 1940’s. It was no longer even up for debate that the Sinn Féin that existed after 1923 is not remotely the same nor recognised by the courts as the same party that existed pre-1923.
Not long after the ruling in the case, Sinn Féin was taken over by a rejuvenated IRA which would later adopt socialist policies for the party. However, the party split again in 1970. What came out of the split was a party called Official Sinn Féin on one side which became Sinn Féin – The Workers Party in 1977 and is today simply known as The Workers Party. Another party called Republican Sinn Féin also came out of the split, but they run no candidates in elections.
On the other side of split, a party by the name of Provisional Sinn Féin was formed on the 11th of January 1970. It was intrinsically linked to the Provisional IRA. This is the party in which today’s Sinn Féin originated from, not that of 1907. Ruairí Ó Bradaigh became the first President of Provisional Sinn Fein and was succeeded by Gerry Adams in 1983 and the rest is history. It eventually dropped the word ‘provisional’ from its name and became just Sinn Féin.
Sinn Féin has a complicated history. There have been more splits in the party than you will see at gymnasium. In truth, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have far more claim to have been descended from the 1918 Sinn Fein than that of the Sinn Fein we see today. All political parties have parts of their history’s they wish to forget, Fine Gael have the Blueshirts, Fianna Fail have Charles Haughey as examples. Yet the breath-taking historical revisionism by Sinn Fein to try and associate themselves with the party of 1907 and suggest continuity with a party led by Arthur Griffith, who would turn in his grave if he knew modern day Sinn Fein were trying to claim continuity to his party, is simply historically inaccurate and a blatant lie.
“Sinn Féin President Mary Lou McDonald and Vice President Michelle O’Neill” by Sinn Féin is licensed under CC BY 2.0