Meanwhile, latest figures show that over the last three months brexit has reduced trade with the EU by 17bn. What surprises me is seeing brexiters dispute that; obviously trade with the EU has decreased, that was almost the point wasn't it? So is it the size of the decrease? People saying "Yeah it has decreased but it feels more like 12bn to me"? It's the same as after an election "this area just feels X, no way did Y win it".
The problem is that beyond a certain level, humans simply can't compile and process the relevant data so they become reliant on larger entities to do that for them. But if the entities in question are believed to be - or simply are - biased or inept, and the results they report are rejected, then people really are left discussing issues blind.
So, as trust in pretty much every type of institution or organisation seems to be falling, this is just another example. But I feel that if the BBC says "X has invaded Y" or something like that, then someone can, at least in theory, go and check that for themselves (or get a trusted friend to etc), but if the BBC says "Unemployment has fallen by 4 percent" or "Hospital waiting times are down on average" then there is no possibility of checking this. In fact, more than that, someone might have lost their job and know others who lost it and that anecdotal lived experience might well feel more like the truth.
I dunno where I'm going here, it's just I've noticed that (in my personal experience ironically enough) more and more people are happy to dismiss stats they don't like out of hand - but without statistics we really have no tool that I a can think of that allows us any insight into what us happening on a large scale; if the fx of something were good or bad, if people are richer or poorer, if summers are hotter etc etc