How many is ‘many’?

by Daryl Ilbury

There’s a nasty little trick being used to argue for ending - and extending - the lockdown.

How many is ‘many’? It’s not a silly question, it’s actually quite important, especially now. Over the next few weeks, you’re going to hear arguments for keeping and ending the lockdown. Commentators from both sides of the argument will want to provide authoritative weight to justify their position. They’re also going to suggest statistical significance to that weight.

And that’s where the word will crop up: ‘many’. Example: “Many scientists are saying that…” or “Many businesses are facing…”. On the face of it, there’s a degree of accuracy to the claims; but if you dig deeper, there’s a flaw. To uncover it, all you need to do is ask, “How many is ‘many’?".

To explain my point: In a room

Read More

I’m afraid it’s not that simple

by Daryl Ilbury

Much has been said about what scientists have said about Covid-19; but all that must be examined against one of the bothersome things about science: its mind-boggling complexity.

[An extract from Tim Noakes: The Quiet Maverick]

Scientific knowledge comes with caveats: it is at best incomplete, at worst wrong, most likely somewhere in-between. At issue is the scope and complexity of the subject matter (our natural world), the robustness demanded of the way we examine it (the scientific method), the demands, frailties and idiosyncrasies of those implementing it (the scientists), and the resultant disconnects, which are euphemistically referred to as ‘dodgy science’. 

Let’s dig deeper into the issue of complexity. If you ever find yourself with a little time on your hands, I urge you to look up a paper titled ‘

Read More

Step up scientists

by Daryl Ilbury

It’s time scientists step up, step out, and put a stop to this catalogue of bullshit.

Scientists are a measured bunch, probably because their careers involve measuring. But those careers are themselves measured, not only in research output but also the impact of that research.

Scientists are also measured in the language they use. They’re generally cautious, sticking to supporting their statements with quantitive evidence - “In our research, 21% of respondents were shown to…” That type of thing. They prefer not to step out of their comfort zone of measured responses.

Right now we need scientists to stop doing that, and to start speaking with a commoner’s tongue. The media is awash with all manner of bizarre claims about Covid-19, and in the absence of firm, authoritative correction, those claims are taking root in the minds of people desperate for

Read More

Dark times ahead

by Daryl Ilbury

We haven’t seen the full effect of Covid-19 yet, and when we do, fingers of blame will hone in without due diligence.

I’m going to put my boot in. This thing’s not over; not by a long shot.

When lockdown is over and the coronavirus takes hold in densely-packed townships and informal settlements, running rampant amongst those denied the luxuries of isolation and working from home, it’s going to enjoy its second breath.

And when people start dying by the dozens, even hundreds - and they will - South Africans will look for someone to blame. Social media has thrown up potential candidates: whites or ‘the rich’ - the two terms are apparently interchangeable.

But surely, that wouldn’t happen? After all, such claims are irrational. 

Think again. In an 

Read More

The gossamer wisdom of ‘they’

by Daryl Ilbury

How can I tell if you’re spreading fake news about Covid-19?

Simple. I ask you one question: Have you ever commented about Covid-19 using the phrase ‘They say that…’? If you have, then, sorry, but you’re probably guilty.

If someone comments with some measure of authority on something using the phrase ‘They say that…’, and I’m within earshot, my reaction is to ask, “Sorry, who are ‘they’?”. It irritates my wife, who I suspect continues to use the phrase simply to return the favour.

There’s a reason for my pernickety inquisition: In journalism, significant value is placed on the credibility of the source of any story or comment within a story. It’s why journalists are very protective of their sources.

If, say, a story breaks about some cutting-edge research, and I have the lead researcher on

Read More

What you’re not told about Covid-19 infections

by Daryl Ilbury

Right now, numbers of infected persons are being bandied about in news media as part of the breathless coverage of Covid-19. Those numbers are meaningless without context.

Let me explain. If the media report, say, 500 Covid-19 infections, my first reaction as a science journalist is to ask how many people were tested. It’s an issue of maths and basic logic.

If, say, 100 people are tested and ten of those test positive, the only thing we can deduce is that ten people - or 10% - of those tested, at the moment they were tested, were positive. That’s it. We can’t extrapolate it to a broader population. 

Let’s say a week later, the number of people tested positive is now 20; has the rate of infection doubled? Not necessarily. It depends on how many people were tested. If, to get

Read More

The maverick who got us to wash our hands

by Daryl Ilbury

The reason you’re encouraged to wash your hands in the face of Covid-19 may seem logical now, but for centuries it wasn’t. It took one of science’s most remarkable - and tragic - mavericks to show the extreme value of a simple act. His story is worth telling.

Here it is, in an extract from my book “Tim Noakes: The Quiet Maverick”:

When science drops the ball: The uncomfortable truth about science

Unfortunately, because scientific research drives innovation in fields such as medicine, pharmaceuticals, armaments, technology, agriculture, sport and nutrition, it can provide significant financial and political leverage. It has therefore attracted more than its fair share of villains: scientists misrepresenting their findings to fall in line with the demands of their sponsors; research organisations colouring their work to capture

Read More

Don’t blame Covid-19

by Daryl Ilbury

Alright, I’ve had enough…I have to say something. As a science journalist and writer, I’ve been keeping an eye on the coronavirus with a mix of fascination and grim satisfaction. Fascination, because such viruses are rare, and grim satisfaction because the blind panic taking hold is what happens when qualified science journalists are cut from the news equation. Let’s get the science stuff out the way: Firstly, this coronavirus is so new there’s still confusion over what it’s called. The virus itself is called SARS-CoV-2 because it’s related to the SARS coronavirus we saw in 2002-2003. It’s sometimes referred to as the ‘novel coronavirus’, meaning ‘new’, because it was only identified at the end of last year. The World Health Organisation refers to ‘COVID-19’. That’s not the virus, but the disease that develops from the virus - an acute respiratory illness akin to a nasty bout of flu.

Read More

Interview with David O’Sullivan, KayaFM

by Daryl Ilbury

On the morning of Tuesday 20 June, I had the opportunity to chat with David O'Sullivan, breakfast show host on KayaFM, 2017 SA Radio Station of the Year, about my latest book, 'Tim Noakes: The Quiet Maverick'. David is a former colleague of mine from Talk Radio 702. More importantly for me, he is a highly skilled broadcaster with a remarkable intellect, a devilish wit, and a voracious appetite for reading. The result was a well-informed and highly engaging chat that could have gone on for hours. Unfortunately, the punishing dictates of breakfast radio meant that we had to pack as much as possible into 8 minutes. Luckily, we're both seasoned pros. In the pic, David is the distinguished gentleman on the left, I'm the one with the hairy face. You can hear the interview here. [Give it a second or two to load on your browser].  

Read More

Blade Runner’s lesson for legacy media

by Daryl Ilbury

Abstract: The future for mainstream media is in the sci-fi epic 'Blade Runner'... In the opening scenes of Ridley Scott's iconic sci-fi epic Blade Runner, we are hit with his vision of Los Angeles in 2019. It's not pretty. Scott's city of angels is dark and ominous, choked by the fumes from scores of refineries; the constant bursts of flames from the sentinel steel chimneys slicing the smoke that blankets the city in otherwise perpetual darkness. And it never stops raining. The cityscape is a matte of sombre skyscrapers pressed shoulder to shoulder, at their feet the citizens scurry in and out of a frenzied jumble of Asian bazaars trying to eke out a business amidst the forgotten filth. When he made the film 35 years ago, Scott believed the skies over the city a few years from now would be criss-crossed by flying vehicles.

Read More