The Doctor wrote:Devongreenowl wrote:metroace wrote: On the TV this morning, they had one scientist who was a cancer specialist commenting on those scientists who are epidemiologists. He said (paraphrased here) that the trouble with them is that they will always forecast the worst. If it happens they will tell you that they predicted it. If it doesn't happen they will tell you that they prevented it.
Sounds about right Metro. The trouble is as I know, that someone else then has to make sense of all the dire warnings, manage the risk appropriately in making operational decisions and of course take the flak if it comes your way. The scientists, intelligence and data analysts etc etc meanwhile sit in their office without a scratch. In Military and civil power if you listened to all the worriers, you’d never get anything done.
That’s a bit insulting to scientists, intelligence and data analysts. I doubt there have been many successful military campaigns without them. Still, I suppose that flying planes, developing weapon systems, using satellite mapping to determine enemy positions and strengths etc etc can be done by people with a gung-ho attitude just as well eh? As long as your gun is big enough and you keep firing it everything will be fine and dandy I suppose.
It’s not insulting at all, that’s just the way you have chosen to read it. Your last sentence sums up the way you are judging me which is way off line. Have planned, managed and delivered security operations at all levels from Prime Ministers and above, down to major events and pop stars. The analysts of course play a key role. The point I was making was that someone has to make sense of all the information, risk assess it, grade it and go ahead with the operation. Maybe like a surgeon weighs up all the risks of an op or medication and plans accordingly. But then, I think you knew what I meant really, especially if you are a real Doctor.